HomeMy WebLinkAbout79 - 107 B (2)BUTTE, COUNTY PIANNING COMMISOw'-3101
STAVY VINDINGS - SEPTEMER 24-, 1980
PAGE
or viill be soon. There are pvezantly approx. 350 parcels in
the area with a potential, population of about 800. Nost of
this development is along Keefer Road. If the entire area
develops into one acre parc(;,,,ls7 t1l0re will be *PrOX.- 1700
Pavoels and a Population OY 4000, or 4-85 times the load on
roads, ezeogency servicesi schools, and other facilities.
According to the Chico Unified School District, the schools
on the north side of Chico are already over capacity.
In addition.7 the "zoning factors" listed in the Land Use Element
also call attention to adequate drainage facilities. Currently
there is no drainage district and many drainage problems. The
Board of Supervisors is studying the possible formation of a
drainage district for the area.
Adoption of a larger lot size zone recognizing the existing
agricultural uses would help conform to the condi-lional criteria.
The alternate proposal attached would allow the pcpul.ation to
approximately double to approx. 1500, and would put most of the
traffic generated on Keefer. Road. The major advantage to this is
that Keefer Road is in the .public Works' 5 -Year plan for improve-
meat, while I -licks Lane and Garner Lane are not. Additionally, new
entrances onto Hwy,. 99 would not be needed, thereby freeing traffic
flow.
A preliminary subdivision application*has been made for a 162 lot
subdivision on the west side of Hicks Lane and north and west of
Oaball.o Way. If that subdivision is approved a -ad the area to the
south in -filled, the 'total population could be approx. 2000 people,
with the additional people using Hicks Lane south to the Eaton Rd./
Hwy. 99 interchange.
In summary, Garner Lane and Hicks Lane are substandard and not
budgeted for improvement, while Keefer Road is planned. The, viability
of agri"cultural la,,ad not only within the proposal area,'but to the
west- across St. Hwy. 99 is endangered.
Therefore, staff Sinas the "SR -1" proposal for that 11 portion discussed,
above not in conformity, but finds the "A-5", "A-20 , and "A-40"
zones in the alternate proposal are.
The P.na-1 iavea of coy.1corn. is areas designated Industrial by the
General Plan located on the east side of St. Hwy. 99 at Esplatade,
and south of -the Airport'e,st of Hicks Lane. The traffic concerns
c
disu8sod above also apply here, as well as questions of noise and
safety velati:ig to Airport operations and sewage disposal capabilities.
BUTTE COUNTY I?LANI'`i•IXCx CoKMxM:ION
STAFF FINDING $ - SEMRSTM 24, 1980
PAG -3-
The
"The "L -`L"' (Li g`it Industrial) zone was specifically desiped to
limit uses to those which do not generate large amounts of traf:(:i.e,
noise and sew -age, or e_rpose large -.1,umbers, of, people to exist i -ng
conditions such as Airport noise. The "M -`i" and "M--2" zones do not
have those limitations, therefore staffrecommends the "L-111 zone
for all industriol areas within the proposal. Noto that the "L-1"
sane is not listed as a consistent zone it .the Land Use Element,
but since all uses allowed by it ar6 also allowed by the 11M,"'I" and
"'M--2" zones, a finding of consistency can be made.
Comments from other agr.acies are as follows
Public Workst Mose roads in area are substandard.
Environmental Xaalth: Much of the rezone area is questionable
for development with septic tank systems - 'Where Possible, small, �
acreage parcels may not -meet the standards of the Land Division
Ordinance.
Division of Forestry: No'objections,
w ,s ow
FRo
1-7
•. ,,�,�# -moor
t ' 4.
• '' II r
.rl s.irr p �....1 N
i
\ bbb a. h .F•
t• r
.s� .• a �^ ♦rte
• , w�..a�h� ,, r �yII
L—>r
r 3 g
�fi7 �jyj r . r.r.. ed
�r ,i°++ ` - .••' s•' r '! / 111
3 � f
/ M
•.� �4.,R;9;,kurr � � ,
` kv,
• LL �,.�
• �!h `a h J%. �� �' � vk A'rr r �� r �� � U�y' � y'���~,�• . Yyy 'i� r#�n..
• �1 •+ti... r.0 cM 1*.` k'�r '"'�g7��.r°r � x w � �' �{ � y °t�,��t .s"�`.?�p4r � e
,,, �"✓,,,.,,, .• � �:uv�^'fw_"'SJ ����'jm's r6,.a.YM>yy..d: '�� L riq.. •4�•'�' yff'•rss,.."°�~�''ti, ry n °.« '
"+* �. * +f� x ,�I� ry �Yatr.i-b�'�C'•. +..n•�+� 0'L ��. "x KC, ,. ',^`�a`M�i "•� a r 7 . F' . r. i � � K
i sth •r •er as " n � � 5 r.
§11 4Js s r
t+ •or l r.. „r..�a+t._ � �f ""� ',�,� „a.
_r r
.. `'u. � ,.,�. x .� a wlr� `.'s., «n. .. r^��.,� r".r'sa �,,l.,,ti;.t;..:•� ,�nu.u���p ' �? 4`..Z'`'L.•:.:,
1f"'�q r'; •tns +-:rr �r�ur,�`"��r.1,x"i^``���ee' p�' +:1�/�.t�.� „�,,,,�y�,.•w;cor�r
pN �• ��i ukwt�t`H'.d`.rirrY+tt l.Kt k+.fg�t� �.. � ��tk...�---� /
..,..•�L�``. _..c�..•i" . t yam,,;.��..�-t•....'", � ,f�� '✓'�
�fd�YIYD/�G41!.�+rw"'�."`_'o"1RY.`_-....+-.•-...—...-..,_.....-..- .. . - 1 1Y - ..
131,ITTE COUNTY N,ANNING COMMISSION
UTNTIT13S- 8eptembex 24, 1980
ITEM ON WHICH CSN :�;r1V1RONMENTAL I
xMPAC'; 1 fUXV ti+lA 9_NHM 1 llllLY. C;�.RTMIr"D
Butte County Planning Commission k- Rezone from "A•-2" (General), i
(Light Industrial) and 11A_L0" (Agricultura1-4-0 sere parcels) r
to "A-i6o" (Agricultural -160 acre parcels) ��A-4-011 (Agric4,ltural
40 acre parcels), "SR --3" (Suburban Regidential-3 acre parcels),
"SRacr (Sarcels) Resid acre parcels) , "SR 5" (Suburban
"S -•R."' (Suburban-R,esxdentia:L),"A--S11
'
Residential. --5 arse Parcels)) ,
(Agricultural -Suburban Residential) 71IRT-1-A" (Minimum Density
Resdential Trailer), "RT -1" (Minimum Density Residential --Mobile
Home(Single-Fomily(Single-r ]lesidential»); "F_Q" (Public, Quasi.--
Public) ,
110-211 (General Commercial), "L ->i' (Limited Industrial),
"M -I "' (Light Indus -trial) al) and "M-2" (Heavy Industrial), for most
of the unincorporated portions of the area bounded generally by
Rock. Creep on the north, Hwy. 99 on 'the west, Sycamore Creek on
the south and Land Conservation Act agreements on the east,
identified as AP Books 44 4? & 48, more Particularly d.escxibed
as:
"A-16011
All of Sec. 2?1 m23N, RIE, MDB&M, excepting therefrom the NWA
of the NWy4, that portion located. S and E of Mud Creek and W of
Cohasset Rd., and a portion of the E`'/z of Sec. 271 T23N, RIE,
MDB&T'Z, and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the Easterly Right -of -Way line of Cohasset
Hwyas described on that certain County of Butte, Department of
public Wprks map entitled '!R/W Map-Cohasset Highway -Chico Airport
to Xeefer Road.", from which point the SE corner Of
said Sec. 2?
bears S0 4'34" E, 1551.03 ft., thence leaving said point and
.99 f t. along
running N 11 5211311 E a distance of 2'10ng said Eas�er1
Right--of-Way line of Cohassot Highway to a point, thence N 20 36'36'17"
E a distance of 160.00 ,fit. to a point on said Easterly Right -of -Way
Line of Cohasset Highway, said ;point being the true point of begin-
ning for this description) thence leaving said true point of begin-
ring and continuing along said Easterly Right -of -Way of Chasset
Highway N 20`36'17" :E, 280-38 ft. to a point thence X 34 28' S2"
E, 15? 188 f t . to a point, thence " Ie& ng said Easterly Right -of --Way
Line of C.ohasset Highway and running the follging courses and
distances° South '13 4FF'41" E, LE80.32 ft. S 11 5?'13" W, 390.43
ft.; N ??oL4+03" W, 58.1.69 ft. to the true point of beginning;
eonta� ni:ng 5.0 acmes more or less.
6
� TT) C'�OUNTY PLANNTNC COWIISSION
NG1J>aS SeDtcriber 24, 1088
"A-4011
A port; ,on Of Parcel ' as shown o.'l Map antit].ed, te�e��i Shr,vr
Lands of K011l.o:e;>:,` & Gacksbotter in Sections P9,
� w,r, irxg
T2 3N R1E'eL
record. d n the soff .ce of i 11 Bu �; )3County eoo�,'decti, i
S"te of Cali.fOraia, on Juno 26, 1911 iti Boole J
a and being more particulaoff' Maps, at '�rly described as follows
Commencing at the most westerly cornev 04 said Marcel. 7 in the
center of Shasta Road, -thence along the noj.,_)„herl.,y boundary ax'
said Parcel 7 [end clang southerly boundary of the Holmes, T
as shown on Map recorded in Book of Ma at e'x'act,;
of Butte County, California, N 52�22102”p�' page ✓6, Reco��d5
as N 52018109" ,B) 2272.`j0 ft. and X 89 ;� e (shown an Holmes.Tract
Tract as N 8 33 00 ✓6 00 w (shown on Holmes
�) `12'13,97 �'�. to a point; tNhi,ch point �i,s the
true point of beginning fr.,r this des rip�bjoa, thence leaving -t6g the
true point of beginning and continuing 89 36'00" F, a distance
Of 1338.2 ft. along the northerly line of said Paree ;�` to the
corner of Parcel. 7thence along the easterly t,oundaz�r of said
e
Parcel. 7 S 0609"00" W, a distance of 2071.�1� .fb to a point an
-the northerly bank;. of Keefer Slough; thepe along said bank the l
�'o�lowing ' courses and dist noes: N F3 X1'00" W e
try 11'00" fir! 117 5 Vit ; N 3x23'00" W 1 59.69�ft. ; «N r
95 3 f-ta. N.
630.1 b. S 8y 37,06 " 4J 442.89 Et rd ; 3 .�0 00 L+ I
X 32 03 <00"' W 127.15 ft. to a point, ther3ice0N 091 0054„38 ft
Of °10,33.27 feet to the true point of beginning-
That
e innin - ► 1' W a �.ih3ta�xce
>a � g. I
That portion of Sec,. 1Q, T22N, lt1B, MDB&M locate t
Creel,c, excepting therefrom the westerly. 1322.22 ft and Sycamore
portion located within the Obico City limits.
The SlZ of Sec. 26, all of Sec. 35 and that porta ata, of Sec. 3l,
T23N, RIE, MDB&.M', located E of Cohasset Rd. , excepting therefrom
that portion located within. the city limits of Chico.
The L12, the V,4 of the >l VY41 and the Sy6 of the STl 9 of Sec.
R'IE, MDB&M, excepting therefrom that portion Located within theN'
Chico Ci ty limit -s.
a
That portion of Seca X12, T22Na R1E, MDM located N& E of
�� 7 - Sub” per Map of Record in: Map Book 7 oil Page
B dwell 1 th
6�f on file an the off c0 of the Butte County Recorder.
That portion of Sec.. °1S, T22'N R2E MD &A located N &, W of the
ChiChannel limits and N l; of the MudwSy c:amore Creek Diversion
That portion of prOjected Sec. f
T2�?
N, R21;, MDMM located
westerly and southerly of th.e westerly boundary line of the
Central Valley Power Line Right -of -Way; W of the Chico city
limits, and B of the Mud--Sycamor. e CrE!Diversion, on Channel.
131ITTfi COUNTY PLA11NxNC COMMISSION '
I�TNUTT, Septemhr,T 24, 1980
That portion. of Sooti.ons 21 & 28, T23N, RIB, MDB&M, located. 8
of Rock Croelc and IP, oO °the center�i.ne o.f Hicks, lane, and arts
northerly prolongation excepting therefrom that portion located
within the Chico City Lim i,to.
That portion of "Hagenridge Country ,'Sub" per Map of Record in,
Map Boob 38 on paged 65 & 66 on fila in the OXXice or the Butte
County D;ecordtz located north of Rock Creek-
"
The NWy4 of the NWYk of Seca 27, T23N, RIB, MDB&M
That portion of Sec. �21 T23N, RIB, M.DB&M located within ' Ta'gen--
ridge Country Sub" per Map of Record. in Map Book 58 on Rages• 63
and 66 on file in the office of the Butte County Recorder,,
That portion of Sec. 33, T23X, RIE, MDB&M, located E of the
centerline of Hicks Sane, excepting therefrom that portion
located within the Chico City Limito
That portion of the Wh of the RA of Sec. 4, '.1:'22N7 RIBA MDB&1I
located E oX the centerline of Hicks sane, excepting therefrom
the southerly 782:10 ft4 of the NWA of the SEX4 and the SWA of
the SIEX.
That portion of Sec. 2'/ T23N, RIE, MDB&M, located S & E of Mud
Creek and 'W of Cohasset Rd,
A portion of the V/2, of Sec. 27, T23N, RIE; MDB&M, and being more
particulraly described as follows.
Oommenc-lag at a point on the easterly right--of--way line of Cohasset
Hwy. as described on that certain County of Butte, Department of
Public Works map entitled "R/W Hap-Cohasset Highway -Chico Airport
to Keefer cad'! from which point the SE corner of said Sec. 27
beers S 40 4213411` E, 1331.03 ft. thence leaving said point and
running N 11 52113" E a distance of 210.99 ft. along said Eas8erly
right-of-way line of Cohasset Highway to a point, thence 'N 20 361
1711 E a distance of 160.00 ft. to a point on said easterly right-
of-way line of Cohasset Highway, saia point being the true point
of beginning for this description, thence :Leaving said true point
of beginning and continuing along said easterly right -of --way of
Cahasset Highway N 20 36'17" E, 280.38 ft. to a point, thence N
34'2852" E, 157.88 ft. to a point, thence leaving said easterly
right -of -way Tina of Cohasse8, Highway and running thy; fgllowing
courses and dist ncesS 73 46'41" E, 480.32 ft., S 11 57''13" W,
390.43 -It n ; N '77 4l�103 " W, 581.67 ft. 'to the true point of beginning.
The WP/y4 of Sec. ; 4, T23DT, RIE w"SDB&M, excepting therefrom that
portion located within the city limits of Chico, -that portion
of the westerly, 834.06 ft located S of Mud Creek and -the
following described" parcel.,
CommFnoislg at a point on the, W line: a F, said Sec 34, N 0008120'i
l 5 .8j ft. from the,yk section waned between Sections 3L� & 33
y ,
RI T CG,(D%, Y VtANNiNC I Mz SSSO1
,NtZNt1 ' S__september it . n
+ s id 7' w11s!aip unci t�� ,; �I enc;, iron said point of comt�encei_ �
merit N 9 1 1, ,a c� the trI.1e poin� of bei i.nni.x�g for
the p arca l :t` li d h xc �n dc;;ar.r ,l'yt�ci; t;h +x c;e, from said true' point
F a Y J
O on
of begi,nnin«n t 0 C78'2(�'1 W (70.0008,, c,p a i c tr a thetccn or oi"rl�
bank a �'tu.IL,.rE:ek, t;h�;n�:el, Napntea� of Maid C;a'cc:�C he iollowi.ng �.'lVe
Mud Cveek; hr�2lco al ons; c� r 1 , ,, 0 :. ; I � ' 7Q S
courses and. 1 ` Qa t�;s:NNC�Ca`?01' ]a 1(5.8 ft. and, N 2 027' E 13�. ft,
S 8 08
1,
)5.
lc ging said center of M8d Creek, N ?8031 B x,79.26 f
6'2'w �8 .20 ft, S 89 31'50" w 319.75 ft. and S 89 30,
thenc.o S 5_ 9
50" W 461-311- f G . to the true point of beginning,
"SR -1 1r 1
All that propr•..7 ty located Z of Rock Creek, E of the centerlir�.Q
of State H�ry. 99, N of the centorline of Keefer Rd. and W of
the E line of the Wh of the WYa of Sec. 28, T23N 7 :RIE, MDB
All that property located S of the centerline of Keefer Rd.,
E of the centerline of State Hwy. 99, W of the centerline of
Hicks Lane, and N of Sycamore Ore
elw and that portion of Mud `
Creek located W of its confluenco with Sycamore Creek, excepting
therefrom the following 9 parols
1 A portion of Parcel. 7, as shown on Map entitled, I"Map Showing �
P 31&32
Lands of Xohloff & Cxackstetter in Sections 29, 30, ti
rf23N� H1E", recorded in the office of the Butte County Recorder,
State of California, on ,Tune 26, 1911 in Book 7 of Maps, at page
35 and 'being more particularly described as follows
Commencing at the most westerly corner of said Parcel 7 in the
center of Shasta Road; thence along the northerly boundary of
said Parcel 7 and along southerly boundary of the Holmes Tract,
as shown on Map recorded in Book � of gaps, at page 35, Records
of >3utt CouI�ty, Cali;forni� 52 22'09" E (shown on Holmes Tract
and N 89 36' 00" E ( shown on. Iiolmes
as N 52'18' OC�" F) 2272.70 point which point is the
Tract as N'8 33'00" E) 121, ft. to a p p
for �l:�i,s dcscra.ptia , ; thence leaving. the
true point of beginning , „
true point of begs nn� ng and continuing N 89. 36 o0 E, a distance
of '1338.2 ft. along the northerly tline
he aOf said
rly b Parcel
7o'to
s heaid NE
corner of Pa.5cel. 7; thence along
Parcel 7 S C) 09'00" W, a distance of 2071.91 ft. to a point on
the northerly 'bank of Keeler Slough;
thst.ce along said bank the
and dist rices X 63 41'00' W 59.69 ft., N
following 7 wourses , " ft.. N, 43 50'0011 W
4401'1'00" W 117:85 ft-; N 30 �3 0o W N 35 0 1 11 r
630. 1 ft.; S 84 37 do W 442.89 ft.; 35 00 oS w 254.,8 ft.;
� I 11
N 3203' gyp" W 127.15 f t . to a. point*' thence N 0 24100" W a distance
Of 105342? feet` to the true point of beginning.'
2:; the easterly 2590 ft. of Parcel 21
"Priesi.ng Lands", per
map recoJ'd�:d in Map Book `7 on Page 23 in the office of the
Recorded CountY Of '-Butt e, State of California;
.A.l.so, the southerly '1053-98 ft. of the oas torlY 1856.02 ft. of
Parcel 3 of said ".Pridesin,g Lauds"
RIE,
3: That portion of the southeMl.y `150 a t. of Section9h southerly
MDB&M located E of the centerline off. Sta't'e hwya 99,
150 f b. of the SW1+�of ;neo . 32, T23N, R11,;,MDB&M, excepting, there-
from the Par.:t ocly 2590 ft. `g'
i � •
'�'�� COUNTY ,PLANNING COMMISSION
M �V1.i`6i a September 24, 198
The n.orthexly 491.86 ft. of Slocti.an 6, TUN, WE, MDB&.M locates
E of the scan!;erli o 0f 13'tata Hwy. 99.
The northerly 491.a6 ft.. of the NW;4� of Section 51 !1,' U, RIE,
MO&M, excepting there:f`.vom the oa.s borl.y P.590 ft.
4: All. 'that portion l.ocrated within the ri.t;y limits o�r Chico.
5: That portion of Bots 1, 2, 3, 4, 57 61 /, 81 9$ 10, and 11,
of "Mountai.sa. View Subdivision No. 11" per the plat th(,rreol filed
March 1, 194.8 in 'Book '16 of Maps at page 12, Records of Butte
County, described as follows
Parcel No. 1: Begi n' at -the SE corner of ;Got 1 of said Subdivi--
sioa, thence (1) N 89 01137" E 20.00 ft. to a point; in the ce :tea -
line of a county xoa8(Garner Lane, so-called) ; thenoe (2) along
said centerline N 00 3223" W 229.90 ft.; thence (3� leaving said
ceaterline N 27055'3'1" W 26.88 ft~.; -thence (4) N 27 55'31"
W 100,36 ft. to a point that is distant 120.11 ft. easterly,,
measured at right" angles from the base Line at Engineer's Stati.oa
111)11277.1-10.00 of the Department 0f Public Worms' Survey .prom Cente.r -
va. 18Road. to 3.6 miles N of Chico, road. III -But -3-D thence (5)
N 27 55'31" W 99.55 ft.; thence (6) along a cFve to the right with
a radius of 1,145 ft., through an angle of 19 2814" , an arc 'length
of 389.27 f t . ( the ch8rd of which curve bears N 18 1110911 W 387.39
ft.); thence (7) N 08 2614611 W 377.03 ft.; thence (8) N OU 35124"
1{ 39 ft. ; thence (9) N 42 55'44" E 104699 ft. ; thence (10)
N 2
E 1 55,1L.`" E 161.08 ft.; 'thence ('11) x 89427'3Z„ E 40.00 .ft.; thence
(12) S 16",4615311 E 100.00 ft.; thence (13) N 89 27137" E 20.00 ft.
to a point in the cnterline of said county road; thence (14) along
said centerliaeoN 00 32'23"" W 538.10 ft.; thence (15') leaving said.
centerline S 89027'3711 W 30.00 ft.; thence (16) from'a tangent.
that bears S 00 32' 2311 E along a crve -to the right with a radius
of 670 ft . , through an angle of 35 5032" , an arc length, of 419.1?
ft. (the cord of Which ourve bears S 17 22152" W X1.12 32 ft.; thence
(17) S 53 35'33" W 143.26 ft. thence (,;18) S 53 35133" W 95.49 ft.
to a point that is distant 141.98 ft. easterly, measured at right
angles from the base line at gngineer's Stating "'D 11287+66 6? af.
sa' d Surve thence 19) IT 1 1 1t W 146.08 ft. ;2thence (20) N
64 0 43 W 1 8.2 ft ,
� 5, �� 3 9 ; thence (21� along a carve to the: right; Vrith
7' 9 5
a radius of '1,'145 ft. through an angle of, 26 57' 22, an. arc Length
of 538.73 ft (the chord of which curve bears N �O 36'591' Wi 533.78
ft.) ; 'thence (22) from a tangent that bears N 37 0811411 W alot.g a
cuSve to the right with a radius of ',2,945 ft.; through art angle of
03 11 '29 , an: are length of '16x4.04 ft. (the chord of which curve
bears N 35°32' 30" W 164.02 f t .) ; thence (23) X 33056>145" W .102.69
ft. to- a point ora; the N line ,of said Mountain View Subdivision. No.-
-' ; 'Uh-qrtce (n4) along, 'Lust said ,T l i.rtt- S 89 17' 37"` W, to the W right -
or -way line of State Hoy. 99; then -.e socatheaste:rly along said right-
o"--v.ay line -to a point on the S pine of Lot I of` said Mougain
View Subdivision No. 1; the)aco (39) along; said S line N "c
E 86.10 ft. to the point of'-beginning.-beginning.of'-beginning.89 01 "3'%
6x14 2'0hat 71 .property previously zoned. SR�-'I by grd'inances '1996, 20007
-10-
't?i1TTB GOLLY .'"AI ,,1x1QaC l.0 1n'"y0?/
f�C-1,nrIVIx ?4, IPPA
That; port:,lo2i o'C` 'thc�
f t . of the N✓! of the Syd
Sfi of 'th(SXR, and the 0 , therly 782.1.0
of "00. 41 T22111 RiE;,
MD;f3&M, l,oc� feel
of the oc„nk,orla.no ^+,C' Tiicks Tinne, and N of Sycramore Creek, excepting
tl7erefron that portion lor.►trd wi l hin alae of the Eye of said
so(". 4.
8: That portion of the
N of Syr': amore CrOek
NEA of Soc 97 T22N, RIB, MDB&M located
9: That portion of the
rtl-E, MD:13&M located N of
westerly 1322.22 ft of Sec. 10, T22N -
�' + i
Sycamoxe Greer.
! i�RT-1111 ",EST--1--Att y
"A. -SP11 Irk, -RIR "Ski -511 � IISR-I ti off, IISR,,3 �
That portion of Lots 5 'through. 12, Dots 21 through 28, Jots 37
through 46, and. Jots 51
through 57 of 'ii.dwell 17th Sub" per map of
Record i:xa Ilap Boob 7 on
Rage 69 on file in the office of the Butte
County Recorder, located E of the: Chico City Limits and N of Sycamore
Creek.
"AwS�2"
That portion of Sections 4, 5 &. 87 T22N, RIB, MDB&M located E of
the ^enterine of State Hwy. 99 and S of Sycamore Creek and Mud
Creek W .of its confluence with Sycamore Oreek.
That portion :of the NWX� of Sec 9, T22,N7 P.1E, MDR&M, located.
N of Parcel 2 of that parcel map recorded in Map. Bonk 55 on, pages
917 & 98 on file in the office of the Butte County Recorder.
That portion of the NWY+ of the NEY4 of Sec. 9, T22N7 RIE, MDB&M,
located S of Sycamore Creek.
That poi. -tion of Lots 1, 2, 3, LF, 57 61 71 10, and 111 of
"Mountain. View Subdivision: No. 1" pop the plat thereof filed
March 1, 1948 in Boob 16 of Maps at page 12 Records of Butte
County, ,described as follows:
` Parcel No. ' 1 Beginn�n.g at the SE corner of Lot 1 of said Subdivi-
sion; thence ,(1) N 89 01'37" E 20. GO ft. to a point in the center
ly ne of a county roag (Garner lane, so-called); thence (2) along
said cen.terlin.eoN 00 32'23" W 229.90 ft ; thence C3A leaving said
centerline N 27 55,31" W 26.88 ft. thence (4) N 27'55'311
W 1C10.3C
ft ' to a' point that is distant 120.11 ft. easterly,
}:asu,red'at right angles from -trhe base line at Engineer's Station '
"tDn"277+10.00 of the Department of Public Works' Survey from Center -
vi zl Road to 3.'a miles N of Chico road III -But --3--D thence (5)
IT 27 55131" W 99•.55 ft.; thence (63 along a 68rve to the right with
a radius of 17145 ft., through an angle of 19 28''4 ", an arc length
389i27 it (the ch8rd of which curve bears N IS 11'09" 387=39
thence N 08 ;26146" W 377.03 ft. ;thence (8) N 00 35'24"
BUT 'I'D MINTY AL,ANNXNPCOMMISSION
^IINXJ�'Scpi cml.,cx t 7., 1i1f30
I; 13 .39. ; thence (') N 11�j°5'�F4" E 104 99 ft.; thence (10) ")
N 425514811 E 161.08 ft.; thr,,nce (11) N 89027 "),gll E 40.00 ft.; thence
t ►
I (12) � �6 tt6 � 53 " � �a0.po ,�'�• ; thence (�3) � 'p�9 �7 a7 :F# 20.00 ft.
to a point in the ceSterline+ of said county road; thence (14) along.
said Centevline N 00 3212311 W 538.10 ft.; thence (15) ;Leaving said
ceaterline S 89027'3711 W 30.00 ft.; thence (16) from a tangent
-that bears S 00 32 "23"' E along a rive to the right with a radius
of 670 ft., 'through an angle of 35 50'39"., an are length of 419.12
irt. (the cord of which curve bears S 17 22'52" W 412.32 ft.; thence
(17) S 53 3533" W 143.26 ft.; thence (18) S 53 35'33" W 95.49 ft.
to a point ,that i:s distant 441.96 ft. easterly, measured at right
angles from the base line atgineer's Stating ""D2"287•+•66.67 of .
sad C,i :rvey; thence (19) N 71-9119157 "" W 46.08 ft.,; thence (20) N
64 05'43" W 158.29 ft,; thence (21 along a crve to the right With
a radius of 1,145 ft., through an angle of 26 5712211, an arc length
of538.73 ft. (the chord of which curve bears N �O 36'59" W 533.78
ft.); thence (22) from a tangent that bears N 37 081141' W along a
curve to the right; with a radius of 2,945 :fit. through an angle of
03 '11'29", an are length of '164.04 ft. (the chord of which curve
bears N 35°32'30" W 164.02 ft.); thence (23) N 33°56'45" W -102.69 l
ft4 to a point on the N line of said MountSin View Subdivision No.
1 ; thence (24) along; Last saida N line S e,9 1737" W 237.59 ft . ; thence �
(25) leaving said N lane S 27 55'3111 E 390.62 ft to a point that is
distant 128.57 ft. weo-terly, measured at right angles from the base ;
line at Engineer's Station "D 11295+10.81 of said Survey; -thence (26) i
along a cure tG 'die right wit a radius of 1,145 ft., through an
angle of 12 28'45" an are length of 389.27 ft. (tie chard of which
bears S 16 WOW' E 3 7.40 ft.) thence (27) S 08 26 �6" E �37r03
ft . thence ('28) "'S 0'104'59 "" W 136.37 f t. ; thence (29) 8 01 0411,59
W 2.85 fto to a point gn the S 'line of said Lot 11.; thence C30
along said S line N 89 17'37" E 193..12 ft. to the MI corner of said ,
Lot 3; thence (31) along said W line of said Lot 3, S 00 32"23"E i
177:21 ft. ; t;hen8e (32) leaving said W line S 73°17'14 " E 51.12 ft.;
thence (33) S 64 05'43" E 118.29 ft. to a point that is distant
279.15 ft. westerly, measured at right angles fromthe base line at i
Engineer's Station "D ""283+20.90 of said Survey; thence (34)along a curve 'o the Night with a radius of 1,145 ft., through
an angle- of P-6'57'291',,- an ar .� length of 58.73 ft. (the chard
of which curve bears 8 50 36'59" E 533.78 ft.), thence (35)
from a tangent that, bears S 37 081141" E along a curve to the
right with a radius of 2;945 ft., through an angle of 03°'11 129"
an arc length of '164.04 ft (the chord of which curve bears S
3503'x' "'29 "' E 164. 2 ft .) ; thence (36) S 34 02'' 35" 'E 48 91 f't ;
thence (37) S 34 02'35" � 75.02 ft.; thence (38)
S 34b02'35" E.
80.26 ft' to a point on the S line of Lot:1 of said Mountain
View Subdivision No. 1`; thence (39) along said S lane N 89 01'37E
86.10 ft. to 'the point of beginning`,
Containing 24.39 acresi more or lesP,, Chico.
�f
B! Tt.ji COUNTY P%A*INSN'r 6MISSION
MINilTPS ygAember 24, jq$0
110-211
Thai; portionOX the southe
of the crly 130 ft. of 5e. 3'1 T23N RIB,M��3&1 l acated �ntQr,l�;
:i.ne of Stato J1:w,,
The scutiZery 130 ft, o:r the SWy of gee, 32, T2''3N� R1E, MU73�'c1`1
excepting therefrom the east-Wo;l.y 2590 ft
The northerly L�91 •86 ft. of the NWY'+, of Sec, 51 T22N, RIE, Mm&M
excepting therefrom the easterly 2390 ftp
The northerly L�91.86 ft, of Sec. 6 T22N, R1:8,' MDMM, located
E of the centerline Or State Hwy, 99 •
Lots 81 9, and 10 of "Mountain View Sulk No. 'I" per !Map of Record
in Nap Book 16 on Page 12 on file in the office of the :Butte
County Recorder.
rrL,_,Z"
The westerly 300 ft. of Sec.'
UI
portion 1,ocated within the SWY�of2the SWY+'ofpsaid' See. 40.ng that
That portion of Lot 4,1 of "Hobart Sub" per Map of :Record in Map
Book 4 on Page 2`1• of -the Butte County Recorder �Ocated north of
""Fronteir Village aub?
„M',l'SOLIITYY PLANNING COMMISSION
CN —Septemhor 24, 1988
CpTnmi�ncing at a point on the W 1.1neof said Sec. 341 N 0008,20” W
559.85 ft. from �fhe �4 suction corner between Sections 3L� & 33 of
said!P.ownship and IZango; thenco, from said point of oommencement
IT 89°50''50" E 834,06 ft. to they true, point of begi.nni,ns for th.e
parcel of land. herein desc.ribrd,; thence, from said true point of
beC,in.ning, N 0008120n W 470.0 6t, to an iron pipe on the smitherly
bank of Mud Creek; thence, N 0 08'20" W 52.0 ft. to the cev..•;
BUTTE COUNTY PLANNTNG G0NIMTSSj()N
MINUTES " SOPtembor 24, 1980
recoived previously frorj t1le following.
,John 1). Drake and David 0. Jeffries, P. 0, Box 1448, and Trim DUPOUr,
,qOff Cohasset Square, Suite 20, Chico, asM,ng that PARCPJ, 48-0-9.4r, be
1'one(l 'to P0111lit foUr units per n,(re, tile maximum donslt*y llowed in the
General Plan for this area.
John Luvatas) for CIVCCO 20000 asking that hearings for drainage -and. zoning
R
be combined since %whey are so Closely related, and interdependent, and
4,
that traffic problems be resolved before they lies:-ome extreme,
,Sidney 73. Ardon FT Kevin S. Meline asking that AP 44-0137 & 44-02-45
1)0 Zone(] for 8 units
Per acre rather than as A"rt as proposed, and _Co. -
low density (1-4 units per acre)-por AT) 44-01.,.5rk rather, than 8R -I.
And 'letters received tonight from:
Ronald Turnquist, 2425 Huston Street, Marysville, asking that his
property, AP 47-44-05 and, 47-44-06 be zoned SR -1;
A
Jay Garner pleadjng :tor high-density residential for ills property;
Charles R. I 'DorisTurnquist, etal, Route 4, Box 522-T, asking also
for SR -1 for AP 47_26-15().
Dick Molcar enumerated Environmental Review Departmentfs concerns re-
garding the possible 2000 additional residents with tile SR -1 proposal.,,
drainage problems; POOV soil just West of the air-n,,)rt; substandard'
roads and traffic Problems particularly in the area of Hicks Lane, Garner
.and Keefer; and added that schools are near capacity in the north area.
James Tuttle, 36-A. N.imshew Stage Road, owner of 100 acres of walnuts
between Garner and Hwy a(l, said that A-5 zoning was utterly ridiculous
proposal for preserving agriculture arcs that Shasta was the one school
that 'had droppod in enrollment recent'ty; that each year it becomes
more and more difficult to farm ,that he is surrounded by hones, horses,
and motorcyclesand that if there are environmentalists in the audiencce
that want to save thearea, his property is up :For sale. He added that
his noighbor to the north, Robe,ft Mitchelland to tile south pr Meridet.h
fytrerxl.;Y� were ,tn agreement,
Mark Risso, with McCain Ff Associates, requested that I the properties
being considered for industrial zoning near the airport be considered
not for L-1 but for M-1 and M-2.
neV6re Pace, Hicks lane, read a portion of a 1 tter he 'had written to
the COMIqi_IZSion in IQ68 wherein he had stated that "all Property
east
of 99 should be desigrnatod. for development to save the ag on the West
Side".
He added that he had not changed his mind
Jay earner; Sycamore Drive, reiterated the request contained in his
MITTV, COUNTY PLANNING CONNTSSION
MINUTES - September 24, 1080
letter mentioned ab-ove and that of Sid Gorjon, ri Xovin meline.
Carolyn Mili*Os Route 4) Box owner of.property with r-rOnt;0;1g(;) 011
CaTner Lane said tliat evknowsylody knows that the soil in that area is
Vina Loam May—SP, loam -,jjjd, q0 clay --and, asked that her property and
that of adjoining neighbors along GRTPCT be zoned commercial.
T)avid y)uoy, Route 1) Box 445, I(eefor Road, asked that thiT property,
275 ac res--thO Oldest commercial ki-jai ranch in. the state, be designated
f o -proposed SR -1 (1),,
T A-40 rather than the ,Tticularly the 250 acres south
I iveTsion
O.,Q 'Roclk Creek' and added, that they would, fight any kind of flood d,
p 1, r CIT' C-11
roposg that go through their .11
non Hays, Roiite 1, Box 447, Keefer Road, owner 125 acres between Garner
and Hicks for 16 years, said he didn't pay taxes by farming and asked for
I zoning.
Bicl< e)f> R. prances IV:Ulard Preliue, owner of 75 rcres on Garner--
1/2 mile lile filom the Freoway 'Isaid teat the poorest;part of the soil with
many, many rocks., is to the east and asked for SR -1 zoning.
Roy Roney, Route 1) Box 450, said that east of Garner there are many
rocks, but between 99 9 Garner, is productive soil.
Frank Bennett, Keefer Road, commented * that he felt that to zone the
subdivision, Lone Tree Sub --which is in its filial stages --to A-5 and
to zone;--. 2.5 -acre paveel squeezed in between a walnut and almond orchard,
to A-40 is a little heavy. lie added that lie had farmed. and run cattle
20 year$ on property comparable to Bickley's and couldn't make it. It
is �)ot 'lag" soil, He said that his 47) acres while in the Ag Agreement
was assessed at, X560.00 an acre an.d now that it is out it is $1,767 per
-acre and that the drainage district for the area is a Must, and. will
he -paid for not by the taxpayers of the county but on an acreage basis
by the, land owners whose land it drains.
Ho also said that Charles and Doris L. Tournquist with ki-wis on Garner
also want SR -1 according to the original proposalas does Fran Sbelton
With a 68 -acre orchard between his (Bennett's) property and Highway 99;
and that Hays' property is bounded by a string of lot splits. He added
that when Shasta union School was first opened the Chico area enrollment
was 9,30Q and that this year it is 7,400; and besides when there becomes
a problem they can just change the'attendance boundary.
Corimissioner Wheeler said that there appeared to 'be a lot of support for
the original 'proposal and that a lot of testimony had been given tonight
that votild, take some time to digest.
Chairman Max agreed that'a decision could not be made tonight,
Al
tv,
. . . . . . . . . . .
Pu' r.
4
Y
COUNTY P LANN.r NO CO,\1t�(:r S r t);V
til` trf`C1:5 November 5, I'm)
A, Continued from September, 24"lM
TTZaII ON W f I CH AN t"i�1IRONN[CN']'Al~
ImPLO,L' : O T- S HLV iO S `l'.L E'l En
2u,tte county Planning Commission - Rezone .front "A-2" (Genexal),
"M-1" (Light lndusttti,al.) and "k-40" (figr .crultural-40 acro parcels)
to "A-100'.' (Agri cul tur,A1-160 acre parcels), "A_,4k)" (A.gr.i.cultural-
40 acre paxcels), 11SR-3" (SuburbanResidential-3 acre parcels,),
11SR- 111 (Suburban Residential. -'1 acre parcels) , "SP -5" (Suburban
RF-i=id:enti.al-5 acre parcels), "S -R" (Suburban-Resadenta.al);''A--aft"
(."LSra.ou? turaI-Suburban Residential.) , "RT -1-A" (Min;i aium Density
Residential Traile"o), ''RT -1" (rlinirrium Dena!*ty Res idonti,al-Mobile
klc� e), �R_.1 �, (Site l e -R artily Residential,), ,IP -Q" (Public, Qaasi-
Public) ';C-21' (General, commercial) "L-11' (Limited Industrial),
"M_.," (sight I duct�rial.) and "M--2" (Heavy lndustrial.), for most
Of .the unincorporated portions,of the area bounded generally by
Rech Creek on the north, Hvey. 9 on the west, Sycamore Creek on
the south and Land conservation Act agreements on the east;, .
...
rtr lri died as Ap Boob.441 47 % 443
fi1_"�y-1-7l
Njs, Blair re0ortecl, that Chairman GLIhert wbo was not l)resent for the
hearing on September 24 has '.tiotened to the tape of this hearing. She then
called nttentiort to lc:t'ter s� copies ofOich were received by the Coca-
rTisSionr
1. fur] W.
IVats, attorney dor Cecil Mclntyrc, 1i1r)' VcIntyre and Fletcher
iir'awn, AP 48-02- 02, 46-32-10 and 46-y4-26, L sl, -i g that these parcels be
.
deleted from the zoning proposal.
BLiTTis C.'OUNTY I LANININO C'OMMi.SSXON
hiY;�it�r�?S rlove>>rher '1', 1080
2. A memorandum from the City of t:111c:o concerning apl17icati;on for
annexation Of approxima.te`:t), 761 acres belonging to IMcIntyre :anti Brojqj1j and,
3. Ronald Turnqui,st, attorney at 2425 Huston Street, Marysville, r oquest-
ing that A'' 47-44-05 and 47-44-06 be zoned SR -1.
Commission r Bennett, again st.pting that he owned property in the SUbJect
area,, disqualified himself fr.ovt voting; and vacated his ,seat as commissioner
for this hearing, (127)
Sid Cordon requested that: the northern portion. of Jay Garner's property
he M-7., the parcel to the south he 1 -acre parcels, also that property
lie rias an interest in located west and north o�E ronea Way be PAC.
In response to a question from Sid Gordon and De'Vere Pace concerning
animals on S.R-1.,,, it was explained that. SP -1 does not now permit large
animals but the proposed change would j ermit 5 large animals and a house
on l acre, and that approval of -this proposal is anticipated.
Preston Minto, Route 4, Box 1.526 CM asked for SR -1 for his property Ox-
cept :for the 200 feet depth of frontage on Garner mane for which :he
requested C-1.
In response to a req est by Chuck florni:ng-=-speaking for Mr. Pace, that if
SR -1 does not allow animals that A zoning; designation should be made that
does allow them, Ms. 'Blair said that a specialized zone could, of course,
be achieved, but that she believed that the proposed ordinance change
tvould take care of the problem..
Frank Bennett again (477) reiterated his belief that (1) Land north of
Keefer Slough :is not prime.ag land but Class 3 F, 4 soil,an.d (z) No de-
velopment can rake place south of Keefer. Slough until the drainage problem
is solved --even if the Sit' -1 zoning is approved
He also said that George T,ansi ield; owner of property along Oarhe,r, desired
SR -1 zoning, but was in San Diego tonight; and that properties of Dewey
and Tournquist were not goorl soils either.
Preston Minto said (hon) that he pelt in a well, had soil tests made—
planning to go Put in alfalfa and the 4 g Advisors ors advised against it because
of the o
it was explained that the maps displayed delineated. `the proposal by the
Commission many months ago, and the proposal reflecting staff findings was
the result of information developed by the environmental: impact report.
Robert �I.itchell, owner of 70 acres across •fr;a!i the Nord fire Station that
is in al.moncis, was concerned that zoning; adjacent properties -to small
parcels would endanger his agricultural. pursuits, but stlit�i that fie really
11TITTE COINNTY PLANNING MINIASSION
MINUTES - November 5, 1980
preferred SR -I zoning for his property,
Prank Bennett ;paid (150) that Care WOUld have to to be, tal<on, a,bout grroupiijg
all, prope,rties sotitli of Keefor, that property east Of GaJ'ner to Sycamore
is a rock pile --he mentioned Callahan's 1' .t, and added that the only
producing; o,rchards that he was aware of are MitchelVs, Tull's and
Sheldon' s.
Fred Watson, brother of Fran Sheldon a,dd owner of property just to the
north rth uf 'hers Id they are trencliIng now on his property and that soil.
o 'I said I
is 6 inches deep and the balance is half rocks --at least half rocks.
The hearing was closed.
Commissioner Max commentett that there are -many conflicts, farmers,
who are ranchers, ranchers who no longer Want to farm,, also speculators;
people on the Property who want to further develop and, now --all -these
new zoning requests—he also expressing concern that there is Class 3
soil changed from Class I whon devolopment is involved. Fie later ques-
tioned that zoning now to small parcels would now tie tha hands of those
wishing to farm.
Commissioner Wheeler said that he makes his living farming and feels that
he knows a little about soils and "if I had to farm the whole region.,
I wouldn't." Fie added that maybe we should listen to the operating
orchards and that he felt that"time for "ag" in this aroa has just about
run
Commissioner Lambert said that she could certainly appreciate the problems
of the farmers in the area but that there is still some f-armable lanrl in
the area, that it should certainly be -removed from A-2 zoning --that most
of 'Zhe area is designated as Agricultural -Residential, but to rezone the
entire area to SR-Iat this time is premature, in her way of thinking,
`that flooding and drainage should be taken care of first,
Commissioner Wheeler said he wants to see a map showing what aII these
people want. Ms. Blair said staff could put together such a 'map if
given at least a couple of weeks.
Chairman Gilbert reminded the Commission that some protection most be
given to Class I soil, that we need to accept the professional advice
of staff and use natural' boundaries when possible.:'
Motion was made by Commis,,ioner Max, seconded by Commiss loner Wheeler,
to continue this hearing closed until November 1.0.
AYES: CommIssionets, Mfix, Bennett, Lambert, Wheeler and Chairman
Gilbert.
NOBS : No one.
Motion carried
x
BUTTE COUN'T'Y PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - Noveiiibot 19, 1980
4'.S.+
j�IM1, 0 fW�ARINO . rnN`r'rljT1I t, trttnM jgnV}Wi37"s}i Sf�p
wwc�'•�I,�w>n•> t.LLMvY +/ Kass.\.iNYI`lt. a SM'ui '�.4N'e t x > of w.++RM4i >Rulu.1 M4X...n l4 Mra.i4wM'.� w
TTM41 ON WHICTI AkT ,f,fi± "jRWr}4 tN'`.I.'AT1 79-107-1.1
k'r'CE7'1? LJ M 1°rtSV CIJ11i Ut)E 1'L E"TVD
.amut.
f,e •cunt„y "l,ar+, ir:g; Comn, iiaslZorLe ,PrWri 1A411 (Cieneral),
"i`1--'�” (S,i rpt ,;w�,,al x)i sal) and "A��?101, �A�x�ir,.l, t t�rrul.�ri0 acre parcels)
to "A-•'160" ( r a ;ul tux����-'1GC .acre pa 0,e7 a) y (A�xi,cu� ��ura>w--
u
4(Suburban Se'rulAelit;al-3 �c�
e pa'rc'els.),
Sb)l~l aO'eSie(Suburban it
R,sidenti,91-5Aore parcels) tburban�Residnt al)"A-SR
„
t.- ertxal),"TT-�-Ar-aimum Densi.t
Y
%AgricuJtu- I-"uaurban,Res dnuaalMcl
le
sidelab".r�'n111o'r�, TZT-V 0;,ni um rjot �i.y 7mLde.
Res duet-ial) , "P -y0," (Public I Quasi--
1"%blic) , "C - " � t:r�oral Commercial.)
,Ii1.,,'!,r (T3 hc" .fialuatx;a al) and "I �-a "' (}`t".;rt-,l' Tnrtu,t.r�i,al.), :for rust
r F the uni.ncu cpora tial port;io'nis of the area bou-aded general.l:y by
Roc,,kr Crepe on_-h�$ riorth .Nwv. 91-4 ori the west, uycamo're Creek on
} h, G r1(l 11 and s.axl,d v 1. 0xv 1f;1ojj A":r. �a�,r' fwtl('Yt� �a o a the ease,,
1c nt ;t: f'ied as X k Books 44, li 7 tx
81-39-1-63
Nis.. Blair reminded the Commission, that this is a closed hearing and
called atten tion to a map prepared by staff at the request of the
(lommissioners, attempting to identify all the property owners Who
either, by letter., or at the public Bearings requested special
ert also del.a.neating the drainage
s for their property, .
dons�.dera.ta.on p
channels and diversion channels proposed within the proposed drain-
age district. she -added that the recjuest far a A�ed�um l7ensit��
Residential designation by Sid Gordon, for. a portion that had teen
designates) Low }tensity Rtsidential could. not be considered by the
Commission because the General Plan sloes not provide ,E'er it, taut that
Mr. Gordon had indicated that I to 4 dwelling units per acre would
fulfill his cl ient's wishes; also the request from Mr. Minto .for
Commercial could not };e considered for the same reason.
Following the lr,ecedent set before, Commissioner Bennett said that
Ile tgouid refrain from discussion and mored down into the audience.
Ms. Blair requested Clay Castleberry, 1lirector of Public 'Forks, to
F4-
BUTTE COUNTY P �ANNTNG COMMISSION
MMUT1,41.S - November 1.0, 1989
outline the status of tiie prvposod drainage district for the area.
Mv. Castleberry called attention to the proposed drainage plan for
this area prepared by ,Folin Anderson, an engineer from Chico em-
phasizing they ;fact that tho ,Board has not accepted chis plan and, add-
ing that concerned citizens west of Highway hQ had exp,resscd to
the ]hoard that nothing be clone to allow development cast of pJ
until -there is some entity that would. help take care of the drainage
on both t.h,e east and west side; and that these residents say they
are ready to form a maintenance district and that in two weeks he
(Castleberry) plans to have a. proposed maintenance district in front
of the Board—that would, lie from Rock Creek on the north, i Ighway
99 on the west, Sycamore Creek on the south and perhaps including
the Flagon development on the east, w:t f1 •,^.,^r t., do floor,
on Rock Creek, acquire rights-of-way and do maintenance work.
In, -ro-,ponso to a question from Chairman Gilbert as to whether it
wou.Ld be impossible for any development to take place in that area
because of the drainage prol)lem,he commented that two developments
(subdi:visa:oils) were proposed in this area, opposed by Public Works
taut approved by the Board --with pumping into Rock Cheek to solve
the drainage problems adding that just recently Z, on appeal, were
approved by the Board upholding conditions for drainage, He also
said that there are several hundred parcels in the mill that will
probably happen. And in response to a question from Commissioner
Lambert, he said that within a year he was l�ope£ul that there �Joulci
be a working entity- again emphasizing the fact that nothing has been
approved by, the Board, and adding that when the 6Qb parcels that he
has heard discussed in some form or another are developed there
would--] �opefully- -be something there. He also said that there are
developments going on south of Keefer Slough now, several planning
to pipe water into Mud Creek, others into Rock Creek.
Mr. Castleberry also commented that there were plans to reconstruct
Keeler Road in S or 6 years but there were no plans for Garner and
that he £oarod that we would "never see flood diversion as originally
planned due to the lack of funds ;
Commissioner Wheeler commented that he felt that the original pro-
posal is the best for the area with SR -1 £or the bulk of the area
except fort orchards south of Keefer 81oug}. Commissioner Lambert
commented that she. felt that permitting so many small parcels, at
this time, prior to the draina4,e solution --would be premature
and recommendedthat it be zoned to larger parcels, perhaps "SR -,i,
now and another look taken in a year or so.
After a lengthy discussion in which Commissioner Lambert was adamant -
in her stand that problems of drainage, flooding, traffic, etc,he
solved before zoning to so many small parcels, Commissioner 'Wheeler
said he -Felt there Would he a more orderly development to capacity
of the area if it is put in smaller parcels now; that staff has
problems with criteria trying to get it clown to ono -acre size, and
perhaps that criteria could lie implemented when there is a project
-5-
UTTE COUNTY 'PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTB9 - January 14, 1981
CHICO AIRPORT' REZONE - File 79-107-B
Staff requested u c l;� t» i f ica ti ori Of- the C�rnma s ricin ° s approval recom�rendation of the proposed zone reclassification around,Ithe
Chico Airport. On the motion of Commissioner Wheeler, seconded by
Commissioner Max, the Commission corrected the minutes, Page.
Line 3 from "Made" to end of minutes Of the November 19th meeting
as to.�xows
"Commissioner Wheeler moved to recommend the a "
pprovAl of the rezonings
as reflected in the Planning ]Department recommendation and original
proposal. l (largely SR -1) to the Board of Supervisors with the following
propos
holding the orchards south of Keefer Slough (Mitchell's, Tuttle's,.
a
etc.,) in A-10,, adding that It can only develop if this Commission
and the Board of Super7r»i,sors sanction it and make the finding
that it is ready for development and
the Garner property be recommended for M-2 rather than L -I and
the Hayes, et al property (the hong narrow piece located along
the east side of Cohasset) be deleted from the proposed rezone
in favor of the existing M-1 zoning; and
the SR -3 proposed for the property east of Hicks Lane be re-
commended for SR -1
Furthermore, the Commission recommended 'the adoption of.the L -I or
LimitedIndustrial zone (attached) as drafted by the Planning Department
to the Board of Supervisors; and - -•
Find the recommended rezoning referred to as the Chico Airport area i
Rezone 79-107B, and adoption of the Limited Industrial Zone'censistent
with the Butte County General Plan and necessary for the implementation
of the General Plan's 'lancl use policies, recommendations of the Chico
Airport Environ's Study and for the orderly 'development of this area '
of Butte County,
» In response to a question from Ms.;
lllar concerning the maps in
question, Commissioner Wheeler said the map was the original proposal.
after Commissioner Bennetts property was out of the Williamson Act;
�M.
iWTTj; COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSTO N
MUTES - November ln, 1n8t1
that breaks ;i,t down to that size, a great many of those parcels
could. never he developed to 1. -acre size because of o great many
tractors - --percolation and perhaps water avai.l,a.h .l1.ty_,made motion
to go oil the original proposal. with SR -1, holding the orchards
south of Keefer Slough (Mitchell's 'Iuttle's, etc.) in A -10 --adding
that; it can only develop if this Commission and, the Board of Super-
visor; sanction it and make that finding that it is ready ;Cor Super-
visors
recommending Garner's property to he M-2 rather
than. L-1. also showing the SR -3 to be SFr -I, in response to a
question Fr, om Ms. Blair concerning the maps :in question, Cont-
missionor Wheeler said the map was the original proposal after
Commissioner Bennett's property was out Of the Williamson Act—show-
ing
ct -shots!-int;
rommissioner Max said lie was less opposed to the project since
listening to Mr, Castleberry and Commissioner Wheeler, and seconded
the motion
AY1:S: Commissioners HaX, Wheeler ,and ChairmanGilbert.
N i�S Commissioner Lambert, p
ABSilNl' No one. ($ennett in the audlience,-did, not vote)
Motion carried,
k
a
y"
i
iWTTj; COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSTO N
MUTES - November ln, 1n8t1
that breaks ;i,t down to that size, a great many of those parcels
could. never he developed to 1. -acre size because of o great many
tractors - --percolation and perhaps water avai.l,a.h .l1.ty_,made motion
to go oil the original proposal. with SR -1, holding the orchards
south of Keefer Slough (Mitchell's 'Iuttle's, etc.) in A -10 --adding
that; it can only develop if this Commission and, the Board of Super-
visor; sanction it and make that finding that it is ready ;Cor Super-
visors
recommending Garner's property to he M-2 rather
than. L-1. also showing the SR -3 to be SFr -I, in response to a
question Fr, om Ms. Blair concerning the maps :in question, Cont-
missionor Wheeler said the map was the original proposal after
Commissioner Bennett's property was out Of the Williamson Act—show-
ing
ct -shots!-int;
rommissioner Max said lie was less opposed to the project since
listening to Mr, Castleberry and Commissioner Wheeler, and seconded
the motion
AY1:S: Commissioners HaX, Wheeler ,and ChairmanGilbert.
N i�S Commissioner Lambert, p
ABSilNl' No one. ($ennett in the audlience,-did, not vote)
Motion carried,
25
PUBLIC HEARING: BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. REZONE FOR Y40ST OF THE
UNINCCROPRATED PORTIONS OF IRE AREA BOUNDBD GENERALLY BY ROCK CREEK ON
THE NORTH, HIGHWAY 99 ON THE WEST, SYCAMORE CREBK ON THE, SOPA. AND LAND
CONSERVATION ACT AGREEMENTS ON THE EAST, IDENTIFIED AS AP BOOKS 44,,- 47 & 48 '
The public hearing on Butte County Planning Comanissian (item on
which an EIR was previously certified) rezone from "A-1" (general), ",M 1"
(light industrial) and "A-40" (agricultural. - 40 acre parcels) to "A--160"
(agricultural - 160 acre parcels), "A:40" (.agricultural - 40 acre parcels)
11SR-319 (suburban residential - three acre parcels) , "SR -l" (suburban
residential -- one acre parcels), "SR -;5" (suYburan residential - five acre
parcels),- "S -R" (suburban residential), "A -SR" (agricultuxal - suburban,
residential), I'RT-1-0 (minimum density residential trailer), "RT -l"
(minimum density residential. - 'mobile home), "R:1i4 (single family
residential), "P -Q" (public - quasi public), "C-2" (general commercial),
11l -I" '(limited industrial) , (light industrial) and "M-2" (heavy
industrial), for most of the unincorporated portions of the area bounded.
generally by Rock Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the west, Sycamore
Creek on the south and Land Conservation Act agreements on the east,
identified as AP Books 440 47 and 48 was held as advertised.
Bettye Blair, planning director,, set out the background of the
rezone. Posted on the walls were maps showing the delineating the drainage
channels and the property requeats, an aerial of the area, Planning
Commission's recommendations comming forward to the Board and the original
proposal.
Earl Nelson, environmental review director., set out the background
lof the previously certified.EIR.
Hearing open to the public. Appearing: �
1, Devere Pace. Mr. Pace spoke in favor of the rezone.
2. Dennis Strothman. Mr. Strothman asked how the change in
zoning from "A-2" to 11SR-1" would effect the animals in the area.
Ms. Blair stated, the property owners would be limited to the
number of livestock that could be maintained under the zoning district,
assuming there was no livestock at: the time of the change. If there is
existing livestock they would not be effected. It would be a nonconforming
use. The uses unless abandoned are seldom terminated.
Mr. Strothman wondered if the zoning change would do to the
easement road that exists at the present time,
lie was advised that it would remain a private road.
3. Cal Bachman. Mr. Bachman was concerned with the animals
allowable under the "SR -l" zoning district,
Ms. Blair advised that this matter would be coming befo;:e
the Planning, Commission to modify the "SR" zoning district to be compatible
with all. the 'request of the livestock, requirements.
d B ' blic and ciinfitied to the Board.
Hearing close_ to t e pu
The Bearing teas continued to January 13, 1981.
VOARD Or SU1? � Z�S�28 QCT Vt.1T 5'.,.� J. 1 981 y .
k
e
BUTTE COUNTY. PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES - January 14, 1981;
W
B. CHICO AIRPORT' REZONE rile 79-107-B
,Staff requested a c-lar.i.ficat;ion, of the Commfssian s approval and
recommendation of the proposed zone reclassification around the
Chico Airport_. On the motion of Commissioner Wheeler, seconc ed by
Commissioner Max, the Commission corrected the minutes, Page 6,,
„,,, .•. � u , ;Tine 3 from "Made" to end of minutes of the November 19th met -ting
as to:llows:
.1tcom`i.ssioner Wheeler moved to :recommend the approval. of the cezonings
as reflected in the Planning Department recormendation and 'orginal
proposal (largely SR -1) to the Board of Supervisors with the following
exceptions
,rc- lding the orchards south of Keefer Slough (Mitchell's Tuttle's,
etc, ,) in A-1.0, adding that it can only develop if thi; Commission
and the Board of Supervisors sanction it and make the :Finding
that it is ready for development; and
' the Garner property be recommended_ for M-2rather than L -I and
the Hayes, et al property (the long narrow piece located, along
the east side of Cahasset) bedeleted from the proposed rezone
in favor of the existing M-1 zoning; and
theSRde.ripf r .sed + p P Y east of Hicks Lane be re-
the SR -3 ra osed for the ro ert
Furthermore, the Commission recommended the adoption of the 1-I or
Limited Industrial. zone (attached) as drafted by the Planni.lgg Department
to the Board of Supervisors-, and
Find
Rezoneh19r107B,eandadoption Limited Industrial the Ch�.r�o Airport area
ptit�nofthe Industrial Zone consistent
with the Butte County General Plan and necessary for the imx lamentation
of the General Plan's ;Land use policies, recommendations of the Chico,
Airport Environ's Study and for the orderly 'development of this area
of Butte County.
in response to a question from Ms. Blair concerning the maps in
question, Commissioner Wheeler said the map was the original proposal
after Commissioner Bennett's s
• property was out of the Wa,llia.m:+on Act-
67
CONTINUED TO JANUARY 20, 1981 - CLOSED HEARTNG, BUTTE COUNTY :PLANNING COMM- }
1SSION REZONE(,CHICO AIRPORT 'ENVIRONS)
The closed hearing of the Butte County Planning Commission rezone
(item on which an environmental impact report vas previously certified) from
"A-2" (general), "lei -1'' (lightindustrial) and "A-40" (agricultural - 40
acre parcels), to "A-160" (agricultural - 160 acre parcels), "A-40" (agri-
cultural - 40 acre parcels), "SR -31' (suburban residential - 3 acre parcels),;
11SR-1" (suburban residential, - l acre parcels), "SR -5" (suburban residential -
5 acre parcels), "S -R" (suburban residential), "A -SR" (agricultural suburban
residential),, ''RT -1-A" (minimum density residential trailer) , "RT -1" (minimum.
density residential mobile home), "R-1" (single family residential), "P -q"
(public - qua&i public) , "C-21' (general commercial) , "L-11' (limited industrial),
"M-1" (light industrial) and I'M -211 (heavy industrial) , for most of the unincorp-
orated portions of the area bounded generally by Rock Creek on the north,
Highway 99 on the west, Sycamore Creek on the south and Land Conservation Act
agreements on the east, identified as ATS Books 44 47 and 48 was ;held at this
time.
112 ADOPT ORDINANCE 2184., CLOSED BEARING, BUS COUNTY PLANNTINO COMMISSION
RE20NE (Claco AIRPOiT LNVIRO2S`1
— The closed hearing on the Butte County Planning Commission rezone
(item on which an environmental, impact report was previously certified) from.
►sA 2rr (general), +'MI ' (light industrial) and "A-40"' (agricultural - 40 arae
parcels), to "A^x,60" (agricultural - '160 acre parcels), "A-401! (egx�cu�tu3r�l
40 acre parcels), "sR-3" (Suburban residential 9 acre parcels), 11SR-1"
suburban residential 1 acne parcels), "SR -S'' (suburban residential - S
acre parcels), ''S -R" (suburban residential "A-50
(agricultural suburban
residential), '"RT -1-A" (minimum density residential trailer), '"RT -l" (milt-
imum��density residential mobile home), "R-1" (single family residential),
�'-4 (Public -quasi public),, "C-21' (general commerci,Rl,), "L -t" (limited
industrial)) "M-1" (light industrial) and "M-2"' (heavy industrial.), for most
of the unincorporated portions of the area bounded generally by Rock Creek
on the north, Highway 99 on the west, Sycamore Creek on the south and Land
Conservation Act agreements on the east, identified as AP Books`44, 47 and r
48 was heed at this time.
Supervisor Wheeler stated the "A-40" zone is property in the William,
son Act General "Plan designation for open fieldand sh,� feeds it is proper.
Charlie Woods, planning department, had placed the original: map
and the proposed map on the board. Mr. Woods stated he had taken a
clarification back to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed zone
reclassification around the Chico Airport. The Garner property was recommended
for "M-2" rather than "L -I'" as ,requested by the property owners. The Comm -s
fission recommended the adoption of a new zone called limited industrial.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was concerned about the change of
existing orchards and changed existing uses. :Larger existing parcel size
and larger than the 10 acre minimum.
Bettye Blair, planning director) stated' there was a recommendation
for "A-40", but it did not come down as originally recommended.
Supervisor Dolan stated there was a lot of discussion as to the
development and the density. She felt there were, going to be traffic and
drainage, problems. Taere would be increases in the channels west of Hwy 99
Ms. Blair stated the Commission felt concerns wore cleared up
after tho Public Works,Director had attended' their meeting. These items
I
will be addressed before any final action is taken on individual basis.
Clay Castleberry, public works director$ stated he would have a
report before the Board within two weeks as to haw to proceed to use the
land use ,they are considering. It will. help them with drainage problems
and how to solve them.
Supervisor betnk:e stated at the previous hearing he had excused
himself but because of the Hays et al property no longer being a part of
this proposal las .felt there was no conflict.
Th,Qre wsa a motion by Supervisor T omlce, seconded by Supervisor
Wheeler having reviewed and considered the final environmental
impact report for the Chico Airport Environs rezone as certified on July 22,
1980, the following findings were made:
1. Development which occurs pursuant to project approval may result in
significant effects on the environment in the areas of traffic increases
with a resulting need for road improvements, need for additional school
facilities, increases in surface water runoff with a resulting need for
drainage improvements within ,and outside the project area, possible loss
of archaeological resources, loss of prime agricultural lauds:, possible
loss of riparian vegetation and rare plants, and possible failure. of
sewage disposal systems in areas of soils poorly suited to proper
functioning of such systoms.
2• Significant effects related to loss of archaeological resources, Zoss of
riparian vegetation and rare plants, and failure of sewage disposal
systems can be mitigated at the subdivision approval level on a
project -
by -project basis. The loss of prime agricultural soil cannot be mitigated
(although the extent of this impact had been limited by a change in the
rezone proposal which applies A-10 zoning to a portion of the prime
agriG� ltural soil;), Impact:, relate;l to traffic circulation and drainage
can be partially mitigated on a project -by -project basis by developer's
contributions, and the balance ct' funds
rQgvired to achieve an acceptable
level of service will have to come from other funding sources, such as
gas tax, property ta-%, ass.ussment districts
revenue sources, grant funds or other public
3. Except as listed above, mitigation measures are not applicable to this
tyke of rezone project, although project alternative,, can serve to
reduce environmental damage. Project alternatives which reduce the
potential for environmental degradation have been implemented to the
greatest extent possible consistent with
project
findings with regard to alternatives are tsfollowsJectives, Specific
(a) Alternative 1 - No Project. This alternati
because it would retain A ve is being rejected
-2 zoning over much of the project area,
which would permit development with potential environmental impact
more adverse than the proposed project.
BOARD, nl~ SUPMVISgRS KI NUTES - Ja.nti,2Q,1081
(b) Alternative 2 . sone specific portions of tate project to PA -c
(Planned Area -• Cluster) zones. This alternative is being rejected
because the detailed site specific planning necessary for a
PA -C zone can more appropriately be done by individual land owners.
at the time of development. The project as proposed does not preclude
owners from requesting PA -C zoning at a later time if clustez
development more accurately reflects their development plans,,
although such rezones twill have the greatest :likelihood of approval
if the gross densities of dwelling units per acre are not increased:.
(c) Alternative 3 - Lower density development, from SR -1 and SR -3 to
SR -3 and SR -5,. This alternative is being rejected because the
environmental benefits are not great when viewed in connection with
the loss of tax base needed to finance improvements such as roads
and drainage systems, which would be necessary in either case.
1 (d) Alternative 4• - Residential development at urban densities. This
alternative is being rejected because the detriments outweigh the
benefits as listed on page 83a of the M.
(e)
Alternative 5 - Preservation of prime agricultural land. This
alternative, while not feasible to implement as proposed because
oi; the location of existing parcel. ,boundaries and land use patterns
in relationship to the distribution of the prime agricultural soils,
did influence a modification of the original proposal ,resulting in
the application of ,A -1U (Agricultural R
to a Portion of the project area where the best agric Murales *lse)
are i oundo This modification represents a reasonable coxttproiniae
and has become the project: under consideration,
4. Although there may be significant adverse environmentdl effects resulting
from the approval of this project, there are over%waling considerations
"Which Justify project; approv,l, zliese overriding considerations include:
(ang is eIIVironmental.ly supe -mor to the zoning current}.
in effect, and represenp forwats a major step t
') The proposed zoning
in the
A-2 zoning, phase. out of
(b) The pr posed Zolling was devo!'Ved to provide a measiirl�. o: protection
for 9:he Chico Ai;�aot, by esL•a�lish;ing compatible us�!s and dFnsities
near. the ail,-pI)rt�.
(c) The ,zoning as prapo; 0d will, bring zoning of this area Iinto consist^
eney with the Butte County General Plan polioi,ea,
y J
(d) Tile Project will estnb:l:tskt harmoetiolis land use Pattet.�.a,s, aPPropriately,
roped, whfich twill provide areas for future suburban growth of the
Chico area.
fur
t=her 1noVin�r �i tr {
that the rezone to A-l6p (agricultural_- 16 acre
parcels), "A -4U" (agricultural - 40 acre parcels) "SR -P
o (suburban res•iden,tia!
3 acre parcel),.'?5 �1+' (suburban residefttial - 1 acre parcels)) "SRwS"
B(7ARD pF supERU'5 MINUtES,, January 20, 1981
(suburban residential - 5 acre parcels), "S-R" (suburban residential,), "A-SR"
(agricultural suburban residential), "RT-1-A" (minimum denaity residential
trailer), "RT-1" (minimum density residential mobile home), "R-1" (single
family residential), "P-Q" (public-quasi public), "C-2" (general commercial),
"L-Y" (limited industrial), "M-1" (light industrial) and "M-2" (heavy
industrial), for most of the unincorporated portions of the area bounded
generally by Rock Creek on the north, Highway 99 on the west,, Sycamore
Creek on the south and Land Conservation Act agreements on the east, identified j
as AP Books 44, 47 and 48 be approved; the ordinance to include the
"L-Z" (limited :industrial) zone designation and the designation is to be
included in the planning and zoning ordinance books with the draft to be
distributed to all Board members; Ordinance 2.184 was adopted and the
Chairman authorized to sign.
Supervisor Dolan stated she was aware of the tremendous job the
Planning staff had done on this project. She did not feel the traffic and
drainage problems had been addressed. She does not support the proposal
Vote ou motion.
AYES: Supervisors Lemke, Saraceni, Wheeler and Chairman.Moseley
NOES O. Supervisor Dolan..
Motion carried.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS NZINTiTE-,c,7�rtu,axy 20 1981
------
-,-
♦ y�y/ y
PLANNING A» AIT'S INTR,lMARTM �dTAT
TO: John Mendonsa - Public
lNw.i �rw�M+.wwl+r�4s+uwuM�hY.YN��.wMY«Mw.ww�sT�rlWwt
Wf)rks
REQUPST Reviews & Comment
AP NO.: Vrlous
DDSCRIPTTON OF PROJDCT.Ro_ ...
zone from Awx (pttxxially in A-40 Awl interims)
to A-2.0, A"40, A-160, ASRo C-2 a L -I y
Pi 5�,-1: , SJt- , SR1
LOCATION: uottnc ally, b -Rock Cr. on the
N, Hwy, 99 oil the wi Sycamore
,�.,.Cr. on the S LCA a reeMp is on the
APPLICANT: � gutte Cathy Planning Commission
ADDRESS:
OWN HRa Various
PLANNCNC ClaMMSSION ACTION SCIIEDULRD
RETURN DATE REQUESTED: !ASAP
DATE DISTRIBUTED: 4/25/70
ATTACItTgENTS qo plication fat plan.
RETURNED: 4-30- 9
COMMNTS
.�.......r.....,...7.�......,....L..J••.:.� � Y.+...,rn:., G4 G f ..-.. , (,i'S..�.,M....-�.�,.y.....� � -
L --4.w3" ✓ '.
I l.++ii+t?:+VurrwwYrlin-• - 'W+WrM —___` '—w.wri��r.`—�`-...+��rri�iwYw.w�wr�r�w�wr�w.wlMvr.iYLNv-.�
,,.. � _�.. 'cMr,Wv�+tiwwrWwrNv�eu4rY.Y+r:'+w.w.rh.�_.wvwwwrJ - .�...- �
' -,'wa�{n.wWrN'rY�wtiryiirrrw.wr' w..wre -
. •.`�.• Mv+Me4w.
�asy�,�Y '. W+r_a�SrWwiwiuWY4wri
.w.nFwKMIe1WMYLWYwM�.L\�:uitM `vii'ti�+vWnrYW�h�.nM�.�:.y.,yuryr.wu
Y - t .MrMbw»iwi.I�vsn+C.'vi4aw •.. �...+hr1.,4�
�(�
+i VJMrba111w*'1.Yr°Y¢�oy.�y�.wtiiiir...M.w
- ._�.x
�{
. �j� rw..... �..wwlt+w.sw.a.d I
oFp�u°�
PA1AN3' I1L61 DpA" +'tr.,N ,+w+,wus.xtit+s..;
xu..�.�e�a tiw�wx'Y+niXrµw,w.w....n
'D E ®r E v
l'ob, P inns Mv. of porestT .�.,
'I .,..:....
. �....,..,�. ..>~.. �.....#.. ..,,.� 1979
pUEST: LeXje%-rA COMmtlitDEPARTMENT OF FORESTAY
AP NO, Vr r roti
BUTTECOUNTY
DESCRIPTION OV l �t�. ECT: Rezonefrom A -2r ,;Irt jlj in A4 0- �, t���1 xr1teTilfl
to __2Q� A-40 lbw'1GO ASR C_2 1 -1 p�- SR -1 SR -3 S,R-1
LOCATION: ks CT: ananrthe _ V, 6Yc�moxe —
cr .nib �Glae S the B . „
APPLICANT: n.in s s _ .� ...� .. .._
lSDA DESS .. ^"""�...r -
OWNER:
PLANNING CoMISSION ACTION SCHEDULED
RETURN DATA: REQUESTED: ASAP��,�
DATE DISTRIBUTED:
ATTACHMENTS: C2r Rf a2 t Pla
RETURNED
COMMENTS: ....�.w`.. _... _ ..� _.-.--...W-�.._._r.� ....
?PI
TING T�E�s. pro, MST
9 1
N� w �..wa-rt..n cu..e.M.r!Ml�n'�a►n..w�l�mr. �eFwW'•w.i<.fwxeaw»�+:Fs�.x.nx+/Wuwn...utx-�k.Fv: s`,f'�1
TO Lynn Vanhavt - environmental Health
REgUEST Rev,jeli 4 Comment
Various
AP NO
Rezone from A-2 �a,xfi a � Vin, a M-1 ince .
DDSC1�:i�RTi iQiv Or %`R�4Jl��T; ��..�Y
to A-20, A-40 r, -A- 60 , ASR, C "2 b"I j p SR._"„lj..
LOCATION: 1�oun�Xed iaera� y by Rock Cr, on the _ NX II v, n� t�a� lU�S amo e
.. .. -}.
Cx . on the S Pa LCA a 1Tee*Ments on the E
APPLICANT: Vitte CountX P1annina Commission
COWER Various ...,,
PLANNING CoI%JJSSICN DICTION SCHEDULED w - MAY 9 1979
Oroville, Cahfornla
RETURN DATE REQUEST `UM _ASA.P.��._.
DA`rE )( UTRIBUTEM /25/79
ATTAICHMNTS*
PX- T0RNE D
COMENTS; 40c--
rnyy�.
„-
ROBER7' L. FRE EArDURG
too MARZOOLD AV9XUli
nOUTS b, DOX W-0
atuco, t7.tWORNIA PSOM June 27, 1979
nufto Goo Planning COMM
'sot Butte County Administrator
Butte County planner 'JUL 111970
Butte County Planning Commission
Chico City Council Orovillo, California
Chico City Manager
Chico City planner
Chico City planning. Commission
SubJoct: Noise EnvironsusA, Southeast of Chico Municipal Airport
From: Cobert L. Fredenburg
Refbrencoe, Chico Municipal` Airport Environs p August 1978. prepared by R. Rixon
Speaa Associates,' Inc., `Los Angeles, California
As the various planning groups and elected representatives are consi.der,-ng thq
development, of land southeast of the Chico Municipal Airport for housing the following
parts of the Chico Municipal. Airport Ebvirons Plan are signi,fiornt. The area of
particular concern is southeast of the airport, east of Cohasset. Highway and north
of an extension of Lupin.Avenuo
CIO-3, pg 4-26. This map with superimposed CNEL (Community, Noise Equivalent Levels) lines
indicates the projected CNEL levela in ;988. This is 9 years into
the future and might be questigp,ed. There :Is no reason to assume that
the levol will be leas than that indicated by these contour lines.
It would.be impossible to project farther into the future, but it
should be remembered that any houses built there should have a life
of over forty years.
According to this exhibit the area und�w -consideration for development
would have CNEL of from 60 to 63..
Exhibit 4-5, This exhibit indicates that in a community such as Chico ("Quiet
pagetrucking") �-l0 correction factor shouldindustrial activity and
4-34 suburban ,a emote from large cities and from be added to the computed
C14EL to obtain a Normalized CNEL which is a better predictor of
human reaction to noise. With this oo;rreetion ,factor added the
normalized CNEL level in the area under consideration would be
70 to 73,
If one 'dere conviced that the proper description for Chico would be
"Quiet suburban or rural oommunity not located near industrial
activity" the range would be F@" to ,6 -
It should be remembered that these correction factors are generalized
for the nation and that in an area such as Chico the factor should
probab3y be larger than ,either of these due to the 'great degree of
outdoor living fora large portion of the year..
Firodonburg-
page 2
45 is
hi bi t 4.3
of
This exhibit indicates that noise e leconstruction EL) in eDri 1 )snot roele.+ca
N
pagm 4-37
Acceptable inside a homo,
not e1ccep
than ► � . An Doti sdmr level of 60 Daou kci
the outside lovel by more
than highest possible for a aaCiufthtofY 10"140
lit
then be i,ts outaidoaliningw
be rgmembered in Chico,,..
Again, it mutat
is the outside level that is important,
conc lu al i on
The °otudy indicates a nor li ced CNEL for the area of from 70 to 73
accopte►ble► CN�I. for Hioa�ee sites In
while at the darn times that an
'would) have 60 as n maximum- 4<)„w yyN f/ y";)
Chico
Comntante
CNEi. figures car► be co:���us! ng dui to the fact that this is
Comparing 'will
a logarithmic scala, A doubling nl o3.soindthis 9 tuncso there isa
result in a CNEL increases of only
to 70) trhi ch represents a many fold Increase
variation of 10 (60
in sound paver,
Our city &nid county governing boards MAY Wish to a�e�oorah the recent
told,, the courts Steve avotGded
.el®a where, I am
situation in Los AnP' vhen they noise level
't be paid by the city,
damages to homeowners,
hos increased to an wxhouses
from planes �o�het�lbonityeaEeTthprLo�aeAngeles
constructed. Other studios i
house
tsars �C' aiineiour
airport have indicated that the noise levels
bohavior,
defects,, irritability, and anti-social
as threatening as the Los angelas one. I1` is because
situation 19not
fact and the reality we can Estill control this portion
Chico that 1 'urges a
oP, t'n9s
of our envi rOntnent for those who w'i l l come to It
Th consultanta have provided data.
careful study of this report.
those Adta to make sound judgments first
i s ouriresprms i bi li ty to use
will oxteent into the future,
_ re
r
s
LARate Coun
ND Of NATURAt VJF"Je[ art Atte 13E:Al;
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DEPARTMENT
OARL o. NELSO u, r)�raatnX
August 15, 19`i
4% c.
411 o�yQnh+7g Cw
01.0
RB: Request for Proposal.: Chico Airport Environs Rezone XM
Dear:
ca �outtc County Hnvirori eixUal Review Departmel-it is soliciting
l.'ks.o l�ta,t tc�,
px s :dor preparation of a draft environmental impact report
for the Chico .Airport Environo Rezone.
The report, to be prepared pursuant to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines
and the Butte County EER Guidel,i neo should describe the an'tici-�
pated environmental impacts and fiscal impacts which may result
from development which will be permitted within the area covered
by the rezone as allowed by the regulations of the proposed zon-
ing d stvicto.
The enclosed initial study chceUist identifies the various areas
of etxi'i2onm ental concern which need to be discussed and evaluated
in they l±�l.R. Xo4—i of the information necessary to completo the
EIR b,as been developed in con rention with prior studies. These
E�ourco8 of information are also listed in the initial study
In selecting a consultant, c=si.deration; will be given_ to overall
project cost and the speed with which the project can be compe-
tently a^ompleted. Response,, should inolude tlxe consul.tan.tts fee
whioll W111 be nharge4 and a projected completion date, When
Batting forty coot r,, please in0ivate what the fee would be it
^the fiscal impact analysis •acre riel.eted. G u:csh a roll back of
t±�o Scopo of work m`i g;ht. be:c ori(� :n.c oo,,3ry if prcpo0 als all oxceed
the avails blo P, Lde for the proj't-.aro hopeful this will
not be the case.
18 • Prount) Center Drive Oroville, Calf 6inia 95965 Telephone (9l.f,) 534. 7?7
-�y;r < y v t.�� ti 4 ri ,� �y � 1 `'•^S ,a�}1 ry a� Ji �,,e. �4r � '� �v .0 ':
I1 i
l�
�o C(Ty
�J u
® o
PS-D-154.1/chrono
42/
PS-D=1.
ta 0
OFHWC�,, CAUFORQA.
MtaNtr IPAt, rarartcMNO - r+, 0, HUX 0420, 9!502.7 �CliiCt�
rt�rt+r�rr �vt: r rv� , 1143-4401 �
osacramop a
February 29, 1980 Sao "IN
Froodsco
B,alf� C'a,lrrhrrq=mm.
Commission MAR 4
Bti,t.to County.. Planning � �W
7 County Center Dr:,Lv,e
Oroville, California 95965 Orayiilof can(011,18
Dear Commission Members
The Airport Commission, at its meeting of January 29, 1980, was
briefed on the proposed Butte County Land Use Plan, in the vicinity
of the Chico Municipal Airport. At thy; conclusion of the briefing
the Commission asked me to request; the County to requite the dedica-
tion of avigation easements in connection with the subdivision of
all land that is included within the "Chico Municipal Airport
Airport Environs Plan" dated August 1978, copies of which have been
previously forwarded to you and your staff.
The Commission believes that this requirement would provide a method
of notification to persons acquiring and/or developing property within
the Chico Municipal Airport Environs Plan, and would preclude litigation
which might arise out of the operation of aircraft into and out of the
Chico Municipal Airport.
In, addition, tlr Commission has asked that you consider alternative
lana use plans which would preserve prime agricultural land for
agricultural use only within the area included in the Chico Munici-
pal Airport EnviVons Plani
if you require any clarification of this recommendation I know that
the City's Planning staff would be pleased to meet with your Planning
staff to provie more complete explanation of these requestsf.
A similar letter is being sent to the Butte County Board of Supervi
sors so they may be apprised of this request,
1_f you need any additional information, please contact City Manager
Fred Da itis .
Very truly yours,
Vert Smith, 'q�airman
v9 /nib Airport Commisaeon
cc-,- Airport Commission
City Alar ling Director
DCM/ACM-B/J ),'r"rfo
l.rf'i"i�i�x COUNTY . 1I, f r r C .��" l ole
No' too a :.a hen0)y f,i.vrami by tho Bu.Lte; County Planniraf, Comma rm�axr�xx
tfwlt Public will bo hold On W��ea�alm.u;�el.€ry Gopta c„ mbe<r Xi'
19io , ra-L V,'30 30 p.7rm. , in tho 13uG tr Coarrxt.rcl. of stlporvimors
Room 73u {1ez ?5 Crtnty Center Drive, ix , re ring tfa11orOLUv ilc, Oa Pil;
;C'r'i q ON WI{.ECR AN RAVI:RONMEVII.'AG;
mi,Ar 1J', WAS .E.'REV:IUUSLY C�k;R`i'.•f.t']°;ET
Butt.0 Count, ;r Plana inn Commi,wsa,on. - Rezone from (G rieral),
"m-11" (Li6A :Industx'x,al) and 11A_Lf011 (Agri culttiL'a1-40 acrearcels)
to "A -'l60" (Agr,idu:ltu:r�al-'160 acre parcesls), "A-40" (Agmcultural.--
4�0 acre PEIVO€ l s) , "SR -3" (Suburban FSE: ,a d�;nG la l -� j racr o parcelus) ,
"OR -l" (Subur>,bart : esidcntial.W-Iacre Parcels), "SR -5" (Suburban
Residential -5 racm, parcel:), 'IS-Rl' (suburb n-r,'raiclr:a(;i,a1.),'tA-� I ,�
(Agr:i.cul:tural-SubuAan Res i.den t i al) , "TT -I -All (MIrd rnum Density
i?a•s.indembial l.'r all ear); "JET -1" (�lini.mum Density I�e~�mi..derntiral -Mobile
Ilatrmo), IT--.I"
...s(Public,
ublic,Quas-1 iblic), "C�P„ (Gonerrl. Cornmerci L', "L-111 r, m tctrial),M- (]ieOt Irllu:;t,1rin1) and "M--?" (Heavy Inh strial), i'or
moot
or the unincorpor.PaLod purtiorms of tho area boundod 60nera1.ly by
.Hack Creek on the north, I{wy. 99 on the west, Sycamoro Crone: on
tlao south and Ltind Gormerva,t;i•on Aot agreemonts oat that, eras�,,
i d- nti f iod a�, AP Books 114, LJ -9 & 48, more liar ti culo:rl.y doso�r.-i,bed
"A-'100"
All of Sec. P7 � M)W, RIB- MDB&M, excePting therefrom the mjW l
of -the IJW;,,tl that port:i.on. l.oca-t;etl S and L of Mud Creek and W of
Cohasset Rd., and a portion of the V% of Sec. 2?, `l.23N, RIB,
DIDhaI?, and bein'S mare; particularly described as follows,
Commencing at -a Point on: the :has borl.y. Right-of-Way'
line of Coltas.set,
i{4;ry, as describnd on that certain County of Bi,t�t;M�,' Department o:r
Nbl,:ic Wprks mala entitl.erl. "R/W flap-Cohasset 7{irhaFray-Chaco Airpo.ot
'to Keefer Road", from which Point; the SE corner of said: Sec;. 2'r
bears S 40�' 34-" L, '1551 .0 :Ct. thence oavirm . �M
C. 8 Said pain: and
running 1� 'I! ,�P 13" 'R a di stan,co of 210.09 l"t . a 7 aXw�; :3a7.d Ea , h e.'r,.l.y
f, ^t � assent Highway -to a point, thence 1r 2Oo'�6 '
Iti".i "h t ea 1:'�4�`ay lino of (� akt
I �a rl i..;,�Yanr, of '1 0 00 E't, . -t o a po°i�n t oil s aid :Fht,r' Orli Right. o f-�Wa�
'1 t f af;l�,'1;A;,r, <<` old jj*0111t. art" "�L�.:fi: k,(a.i`:' .ti',t'. 1� of b,t;l.a--
r4ixaG; ;dor th.1to (Icsc-;�iption, thormo loavhraf; said 'true poiratr cif b,,,'
Xt-
n` i-q,,a and conn-Inu ng alone; said PlrWtorl.y Thi f htr of" -W y of Chooset,
Ii a f";l�tv�a N 20 361T/1! E, 280.38 af't . t o �i po:1. nt� ,1 th,,r.',� o IT 34)2815,211
I"! 15,/18'; ft4 f,r, a .f�a:,►aL-tlgt,mun le:a•�ra.ntg maid E-11--t;0Ri, of -Way
mL�
t rines Of C.ah rv. �h.l, r{i. Iiv my` ��nrl 'r.�unra`� rad tlr;: � u 1 a �cotarr::�..a and
axmce«r.a,a';`tti:l� 450.32 :f 'L.' 1 ter" X1,7`0,/.i
i'r... N " l t 0 ��1, ,,43'I :'6rj f t ; 1,0 t,110 t"110 f;ratc� I:,o':ini'; aI. bue i nning
5a() anre', move: or l feriae.
A port .on ,�a �xrcr:l 'l � �� sl�aown on I�ic•tp �rtt it%l,c.d, "X'itap aho��an
Lands Of Xohl.o t:"" f & G acka tF I. to:r in �l„c t, ions 291 301 �1
T25N', rocu dod in L'bo office of t1to l;ut,'W? Coaa.nty Recorder,
r"',W L(v 0Z 01"Al i.,f'031i. I) On June 26, 11)11 J -a, Book rj of j”. apol of Page
35, crud boi,ng move X)ar,t ,i.c:uJ.a,X,*jy doocribod afl follow's.
ow's
COMMO=inG at the moot; wcOtarl.y COMOV OX Said par.00;i "j :in the
center Of Shia€) tea Rodd; thence along the notlherl.y boUn,dary of
k nid :Pa.rcel. 7 Mud along southerly botin.dary of tbe lfolmas�Pract,
Map ao shown on reoor:d.ed. in Y3ooi- § of Maps, at pago 3G, Peco:rds
o,f Butt County, California, N 52 2210911 E (shown oto. HolmesT'.�act
a.3 N 52 18 "0 �� ;) 2272.70 1't . sand N 89 ��`y' W 1', (shown on 11011YIP
!t,r�aot as N 8 �i5'00" 11) 1215.97 f . -to a point; whiob point is he
true point of beginning for this doscr:i.pt;" .o'a, thence l.eavin6 the
t,mie point of begi' ping and continuing N 89-36100,11 Y±; a distance
of 1338.2 :ft. along the northerly line of said Parcel 7 to the ITE,
corner of PaScel 7; thence along the easterly boundary of said
Parcel: 7 S 0 09'00" W, o di.otanae of 20'`J'1.91 ft. to a point ars
the northerly bang. of Keefer~ Slough; thea ce along said b61nk the
:fo;,lowi.ng 7 courses and di.st8nees: N 63 4,1'00" W 59.62 ft.; N
44 11'00" W 117.95 ft. ; IT 30 23'00" W 195.3 ft.; N 43 50'00'' tit
630. � t.S 84 7' 0011 W 442.89 ft.; N 35 00 09" V1 25Lt,. 58 ff,, . •,
N 32 0310011 W 127.15 :f t . -to a point; thence N 0 24'0011 W a distance
of 1053-27 ;feet to -the true point of beginning.
That portion, of 81ec. 10, TrPP i, RIB', MD.P,,QxK 'located, N of Sycamore
C1`uok, excepting thou,efrom the vresterl.y 152P 2 :ft. and tbat
port; .on l.ocatud within the Chico City limits.
The V of Sec 26, all of Sec. 35 and th it portion of Sec. 34,
%12.33, 'RIH, MDi8,M,: locatod E of Coha4o ,et Rd. , excepting -therefrom.
that portion locc,c"ted within the city limits of Chico.
Thi, LV2, the '.F;�/e of thr NWYE, Lind the SY of the S A of Sec. 2, T2211y
R11.7 MDB&M, excepting therefrom. that portion located within the
Chico City limits.
That portion of Sec. 12, T22N, RIE, MDB&;.M l.ot^ated X & E of
"Bidwell 117th "Sub'" per Map of Record in Map Book 7 on page
67 can file in tho office of the ;Butte County Recorder.
Th -,,u F portion. of Sec. 18, T22N, RH2 MDB&M lova ed X & W of the
Chico City limits and N & E of -the Mud -Sycamore Creel. Diversion
Chaniel
That portion of projected ,Sec. 7, T22N, R2E, 1+ID ,M located
wostorly and. southerly of 'the x� ps berl.y boundary line of the
Central Valley Puwer Lino Right -of -Way, W of the Chico city '
l'i m a. tae, -i,tnd 1�, oll �.Ircw Mtttl.�SycYatat�r� �,,r. ��r�k i� i':� °r�� z.e�ft Ohara�i0 .
. trc;!'Cs x rt
That PcjK i ora of f,oa i ono P1 & P8 �.i'�?�,1�1', HIE, MI)BA14 "loc rd,'(_ t
" T�cxcl Circ c:1�. sand :iia of th€� centc�r.�linc�� rpt' 1fick;� I,arzoand ;r.ttR
taot"Llier-ly 1)r"olcaralat or oxc.optirl.f'r tRhcaPOf'VOm thrat portion alocgat(�r:;l
wi th!,n tho Chico City fdmit:x.
That portion of "R agonrldGo Country Sub" per Map of Record in
Map Book 58 on P aGus 65 & 66 on AN in, the Of.f ico of the Butte
County Recorder located ed nor th of Rock Creel:.
The WWI of the NWI oaf" See. 2'J, T23N, RIE, Ml) SM,;
That por Uori of Alec. 22, T23N, RIB, MD:l AM l,oceatod within "h a on—
ridge Countvy 5u`l.1" pop Map of Record, in Map Book 58 on Pages 65
and 66 on file in tho office of the Butte County Rocord(_�r.
That portion of Soo. 33, T23N, RIB, MDB&M, located F of the
centerline of Hicks Lane, excepting therefrom that portion
:Located within tufa Chico City Limits.
That portion of tho W14 of -the V12 of Sec. 4, T2P.Nj IB; 'mDmq
located B of the contorline of Hicks Lane, oxc,epting therefrom.
the southerly 782.10 ft4 of the WWI of t<he SEA and the Si' A of
tho SEN.
That porti_cn of Soo. 07, T23 I 110l MDB&M,, located S & E of Mud
Creek and W of Coh"ansut Rd.
A portion of the 55 of Sec. 27, T23`N, RIB, MDB&M, and boing more
particulxal,y described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the easterly right-of-way line of Cohasset
Hwyi as described on that certain County of Butte, Department of
Public Works map entitled ".R/W Map-Cohasset Righway=-Chico airport
to Keefer. NO .from which point the SN corner of said. Sec. 27bears S 40 41' 340 E, 1551.03 it. thence leaving said. point and
running N 11 52' 1 >" E a distance of 210.99 f t . along said Fa Qerly
right-of-way line of Cohasset Highway to a point, thence N 20 36'
17" B a distance of 160.00 St. to a point on said easterly right-
of-way line of Cohaspo t High"ay, said point being the true point
of beginning forthis description, thence leaving said true point
of beginning and continuing alone said easterly right--of-tray of
Col.asset Highway N 20 36117" E,_280-38 ft.'' to a point, thence N
34 28'52" F, 157.88 Ito to a point, thence leaving said easterly
right-of-way line of Cohasse� �ffway 'and running tlae Allowing
courses and distances: S 73 46�r F, 1k90.31? ft. ; S 11 57'13°' W,
390.43 ft' N "Jr��rl4103rr W, 581.67 ft, to the true point of beginning.
NWA
Y
��;,� �� .NWA fj �.. ii'�xa * 4 l P 3 � RIE, :�'l�l.E.7CK.w'1 r � Fr�'y � C," �' " e " rr 1h .v }"
portion .l.ocaNd within the ulty .itch. of ChICU7 that Portion
of the westerly 834406 :f"tr. located S of Mud Creok and the
following descr l,od parcels
adi,�nr��rrctn ;
at V P0011, 11, or, 'th6, W '10o ofsaid One. 34, lel 0o08'2011
,
09-85 i't.. ;i"rem 1h, A section co.nnyr 'tyoLwoon Sactions34 & 33
A
t 9 j -._-yy �9 y f'r _- _y. py W9 {, tq `v,yyt
�itaa.d 'u8wnyilr:l 4Ad J��,.4L g( ; t.11��1. o,01 I. w+hlEl w�C��.T)o n4! of 4t FdFi1}ik".:�Qla�.`r'
mcaxr,L t� <�Cl' Far; CJt;� t"'t`R ttc� t;'ka�: f� ^� �; p r� ; of bee,,' nra�.rs�, �'0V
tk�r� :Eaf°c;� "I rat" Lr rcara. l r'rr,,aa;t, dux:c�rllit d; thenoo, f r'om aid t:C''iar VA,rtt;
o1, kat. nn i,rat; N 0'08i'rlCai W 4?0`9 to ran iTIOU 14.1Ar; ora Lha'- txyut:horl,y
lxc(`r.,k Of Mild Cx�ool.t; thonae, 1,q' 0 0«',90" W 5P.0 ft;. tot,ho contoov of, i
Mrrd. Crook; tlararac;c, (loss" °th(, c(Ixvt0'r, of Mull, Cr -0,'k �hca ;f"o"I'l.oa'ririg,,
cour8r 0 carad (I i' waracar•0: V 89 15, f
N; 88 08' .I'," 19 5.0 f tR . ; N 6(-) 01 ' l'a 10 5 . 8 r tJ
Lkirt�xacc'., 1c a�r.i.rrl ,.;exact c:c''a�Ktov of Nd Crook, N %8
1989.po :ft, 8
; r) 51,5011 W 31c -V5 :t'L ax�c1 � �'�'3e�'
W 48)1.34 .ftr to 't,Yao true poinL or I)0g. xvna.x,; ;.
q,) N_l u
'KII, that ° ,vojaa.rty .l.oc;abod S of Rock C:r�eolc, :IBJ of 'the,, coato:rl.int.
of SLatca RWY. 99, N Of U10 crrit;c.V' in(,cif l�e:c�f'c:xy ltd. and W of
t;ka I'I.no of tile W� Of tho W%P of Sec. 281 T234I, RIE, MD &M.
All that propcerty located S Of the cent,7rline of Keefer :I�d.,
E of the cent erlj_nc,� of >St;ato HVy. 99, W of the cents rlino of
Hicks Lane, and, N of Sycamoxle Creek and, thw u porLion of Mud
Crook located W of its conf'l.rlonce with Sycamoru Creek, excepting.
therofrom -the fallowing 9 -Parcels
1 A, porbioTi Of '.parcel. 7, as shown on Map entitled, "Map ShoWing
Lands of Kohlof:th & Gackstotter in. Sections 29, 30, 31 & 32,
T23N, RIE"I :recorded 1.n the office of thea 'Buttr3 County Recorder,
State of California,,on June 20, 1911 in Book 7 of Maps, at page
33, <aa:id. I)oi fig mora pra.rt:i.cularl.y described as follows:
Commencing at the most westorly cornor. of ,said Parcel '? in the
center of Shasta Road; thence. along the northerly bound.ary of
said Parcel. ? and wrong sou°L erl.y boundary of the Holmes Tract,
as shown on Map re0or:'ded in hook � of Mas, at page 36. Records
of Bu�t;t8 Co-.incy, California, N 32 22109"'B (shown 0n Holmes Tract
as N 52 18,09 " L) 2212 .1j0 ft and. N 89 36100" F (shown on Holmes
Tracts IV 8 33 i00�� S) 1215.9"j ft. to a point which point is the
true poi at of beginning for this d.er,cx�ip°La off, ; thence leaving the
true point of, beginning and. continuing N 89 36100" E, a distance
of 1338.2 ft;. along the northerly line of said Parcel 7 to the NF.
corner of Parcel ?; thence along the easterly boundary of said
Parcel 7 8 0 09'00" W, a. distance of 20'?1.91 ft. to a point on
the northerly bank of Keefer Slough; theiice along said 'hank the
following 7 cc,urses and distances' N' 63041'40,1 W ✓9.62 ;t:'t. N
44p11'oo" W II?.g5 .ft. ; .N 30623'66" W 195,93 ft. ; N 43 50100'1` W
630. �1ft . ; S 84 37 100 11 W 442.89 ft , ; N 35 00'0C W 234.38 ft.,
N 32 03 foo" W 127.13. ft.. to a point; thence X 0 24100" W a distanoo
of 1053.27 :fcot to the- true point of 008inning_.
2 The easterly 2590 ft. of la@V001 2, "Pri.esi.zg Lands", per
MIT-) 7•�.cac�rr �:,f1 i.n MrGt.7 Boolk �1 on Pa ;e 2;3, in t,la,., t�(f i r r'� of tel
• w
!Zk! �Y.Lti.�.C•1"' Cu]ur,',Y Of i`UG", �1�K.tuE, of CirilbUUvrJLri;
Also, the soUq'A T'IY 1053.98 ft;. of t}lra Ga�tk�°�y 1855,.02 ,ft. al'
;C'ax'G }l 3 0{' ,,a a.tl "T'rFir�sa xig arldr," .
3: That po.vt,a.on of the, sough;. rl;y 130 fu - of Se;ctiori 3' "f,31�, RIB,
Ml)t,v,M loont:c.d E of thn, 0c:xlkiy-vl no of State ffi-ry. 99, the sou hr;xlYy
150 fti of thl , SVI,F of Sec'. 32, T23N, K'1t; MDS`&,M, oxcopUr$G
,
tit"Or0—
twIyfrom L (`t,`f
'i" zlryrtt,lt1}y1 ir3� + t1 C't. ul" k'�r�,
t � cfs','N 1#fftYt 1ii.t,.. rp
+� 1, i !''r Ca E,
141y.
i
or �3t:c.Uoll �., 'i'���".N',, Im i�`,, �
1w11ai���°I, i�xc�f�l,a,t� 11711rr�("zc7rra tl�a°ra ,i.t> ),y ��,�74�a J't.
rt : t:l A Gxr a C, aox,L, 1 c)ttl;t,(I, kri (aia%t'a th(,J o i LY :l i nil to of ChIco .
5: That po.rUto7,1 o j,ot�, 1, C,., �, 41 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, '10, and 11
0f "Mau.rltfAri vi.ow Subd .vi.s i.on No. 1" p(,,x, thea l� Lat �thoreof fi.lod
pla;a-ch 1, 19/.18 Ln Book 16 of M(al),` AL Palo 12:I iteco,rdti; of Butto
C OUTILY7 do, sc xl.bod. ras, followS {
Parcel No - 1 : Beginn�n:g at the Sly corner of Lot 1 of said Subdivi-
' si.on = ' r 1. °,
E
C 89 01137 20.00 ft. UO a oint in the center-
line of a colntG : va (Crax'nx Lane) so-called)*,
thence (2) along
said centerline N' 00 32'23" W 22.c0 ft• thence
o 'c 7 (3� leaving said
centerline N 27 55'31 W 26-88 ft.; thence C) N 27 5.1 "
W 100.36 ft. to a �aoint that is distant 120.'11 ft. eastarly,,
Measured at right angles ;from the base :Line at Rngineer's Station
"Dr 1t277+'10.00 of the Deparbment of Public Wor .s' Survey ,Cj�om Centex
VHIP Road to
3.6 miles N 0f Chico react. 111;-Bu1;-3-D thence (5)
N 27655'31" W 99.55 ft. thence (6) along a c _1ve to the right with
a radius of 1,11 5 :ft: , through an angle of 19�'281LJ.�t1, art are length
o- 389.27 ft. (the `118rd. of which curve bears 1•i 18 1' 09" 587.39
f t� ) ; thence (7) .N 08 r�',6 4611 37 ` �
� � � l l • 03 ft.; thence (8 � N Q0 �5' 2411
33.39 ft. ; thence (9) N 42 55'Lt-�" E lo4
,N 11.2 1 ,� x,99 ft-; thence (10)
2 '16u ,1, E 1 f°. ; th, ; t (1"1) N 89 21% 13211 E 4.0.00 ft. thence
C lam) S ,6 LF6' 5511 'IQO.OQ .ft ; thence (13) N 89 2713711 E 20.00 ,ftr
to a point in the centerline of said county road; thence (14-) along
said centerline N 00'J3212311 W 538.'}o ft. t},�eace (15) leaving
saad
centerline S 89027' 3711 �1 30.00 ;k"°t. ; thence (16) fratta a tangent
that bears S 00 3212311 E along !j carve -to the right with a radius
of 670 ft., through an angle of 35 5013911, an, are leri,gth of 11,19.12
ft. (the card of which curve bears 8 17 22'5211 W 412.32 ft ; thence
(1'7) S 53"35'33'1 W 143.26 ft. ; thence (1 8) S 53 35'33" W 95.49 f''t
to a paint that is distant 441.98 ft. easterly, measured at right
angles from the base line at gngineer' s Stating "D "287+66.67 of
said Survey; thence (19) N 71 19'57" W 146.08 ft.;2thence ((20) N
64 05143" W 138.29 ft. ; thence (21) along a ct�. ve to the right With.
a radius of 1 1145 ft. , through an angle of 26 57' 2 `` 1 ant1arc leagth
of 538,73 ft. (the chord of which. curve bears N 2-0036' 59 Gr 533,7cS
ft.) ; thence (22) From a tangent that bearsN 37 0811411 W along a
curve t; 0 lite right wit th a radius o f 2 , 945 ft.; . ; through an angle of �
03 11 12911 , an arc length of 164.04 ft. (the chord of which curve
bears N 3,5032' 3011 W 164.02 ft.); thence (23) ,N 53056$4511 W .102.69
eft to a Point j Foye the N lin of said Mounf� ain View Subdivisi,oYA oto. !
I I
tea tE'�
ubdnc to K.1` point. LhE� SxY7�iz�to.�' C,rat 1 c1{" n� P�To�ttrt�a� �r
ti''i On 1Vo • 1 U1101,.,.c 0 (39) a.Lan.g stAd B lino N 89'0`1 , 371, !
E 86.10 f't; l:o tho of beginning.
i
0' That Iax-ol.!(jr tyIr zoned >Si� -'I 1 )y 0a"�ti anCeza �
and 20?1. , 1996, 2000,
"5"
1
7 Q 'T'ha t porti Lt°Ft' Of (110 0:f* the SAI t1?'iGl ��}tf � � r
ft of (ho NY,, Of Ulf'! Sy" cif :1 �, ��o�rtl;ao�l� 1'�
Of
raT tl�ie: �,e,"ritrcgr�:l � zi�� � ,�
c L Hick„ Ono, and N Of ;ayetim a.rocroe oleo�c�) t i�>
t;Ti ,ry f°ram th:a t pop t; i oj), 1000 40d w°i.1,Tain the 'Pf of thy; lily or" so i.dp E,
4.
3� 'f'05 Portion of Wo NQ of 60c� , 'f'���lV, R1T�,, M�a.i���r1 1,occ�trad
N of r)ycajflo,rej Orc�c;lc
9 That pont i.on of tints wc;sturly 1322-22 ft,cif e" !'22N
THEi K10,9AM l oc;atod N of Eaycalliot'c� :c. 10 }
t" I t" 2S
"��r —1 " � PUT -1—A" -A" ii1's,� su `' , WR"
, tG - ; t' tt �'1 rt OrOr"5,R-3"�
That portion of Lot ; 5 through 125 Lota 21 through , lots 37
through L1,61 and lots 51 -through 57 of 'Di.dwell. 17th Rab" per map of
Record in Map Book 7 on Page 67 on file in tho office of the Butte
County 'RecoWer, located E of the Chico City Limits and N of Sycamoro
Creek.
That portion of Sections 4, 5 $c 8, T22N, R`1Te';, M B& -M located R of
the oentorl.i,ne of State 1,�wy. 99 and S of �Sycamare Creep and Mud
Greek til of its confluence with Sycamore Creek,
That portion of the WWK of Soc 9j T22N) R1L1 located
N of Rarcel. 2 o! that parcel, map recorded in Map Book 55 on pages
97 & 98 on file in the office of the Butte County Recorder.
That portion of the NUA of the NIA of Sec: 9, T22N, RIE, M,DB&M,
located S of Sycamore Creek.
That portion, of Lots 1 2 4{. r
"Mountain � � Subdivision
� o � .7, 6 7, 10, and 11 , of
Mountain View ; ubdivisiori No. 1" per th(. plat thereof Filed
Murch 1, 1948 in Brook 16 of Maps at page 12, Records of -Butte
e
County, deserii_'bed as follows
Pa oel .t`o. 1: Beginn6ng at the SE corner of Lot 1 of said Subdivi-
i ori; thence (1) X 89 01137" E 20.00 ft:, to a point , in the center-
line of a county roag. (Garner Lane, so-called); thence (2) along
said lenterli.ne7 N 00 32123" til 229.90 ft.; thence CN leaving said
centerline N 27°55131" W 26.88 ft.- thence (4) N 27 5501"
"
W 100.36 f t= to a point that is distant 120.11 ft. uastorly,
"reasured at right angles from the ,ba ,e lino at Engineer's Station
o) r Uw'., DP:°jJ6.) ptYi1ont of WNW WC)rk i l iia,pr(, r ,.f r,)M,
t 7 Road to 3 6 tai.:los N of Chico, road :I11--,hut"30; the eco (5)
i� 27 5501" W 93.55 ft. ; 'thonoe (6) along a o8rve to the right with
a radius of 1,145 ft o , Woo& an -angle of 19 P8 "f1.�t1 a On arc length
4,f � h
; �tY c,:nco ('?)xq G�Yi 26' oa6 t'W 372-03 vf° t*b; thanJao, (8) t ��t 0035 04
1
(1�r`1 'L. ; t7; (l tf��rzrry:{�, (_) 1,� �rao� 5+��,��y+�� :fj��("()f °3", t`1�.
4V l (f' ri%'r t .l� P,' 14 I « 08 11 G ! ; L,1.�. �a.�,l �j I �Y + ''. - 7 �+ JY{f II � Ij f
�y y� ( f �, . I I r ,e� ) 34 J 0 « 00 �. °L ,
s I41 �16 5�; 10, I m.()O Ift. ; thoraco 1 N 8 ?V13911
AY 13 11 1,+ PO f `
. ^y� j y 1 ( � � AV Cai � � t� ,r� � w4� 4.=k1 « �\� .4` 1/ «
• , y{ter' l ,�.n y ;
t,a a ��oi rxL t21 tl�a�a cn 't �� � of h�ra i�d county Mad; � tYaonco (14) a7.0nt,
gra�c1 contc:x,11110 .pl 00 3119'P3" W 538-10 f,`t.. Ghonco, (1 ) .Lc tvi,xari
cc�nWr1lao S 89 2"% 13VII W 30.00 ft. ' -r�r� t.cl
ta. a thezYce (10) firora a ts<t�1�xG
tb at bear. S 00 32 12311 TP, along a c8rva t0 the righb* w:.th a radlur.3
of 610 ft; . I LYS rough an ant,1 o of a5 50' 30" , an arc l ongth of419 1 rp
f t. (the 08o,Pd of which curve boars S JVOP2
' `gyp 111 '.32 f t tear ra :t,
5:' 35 3311 W 111-3-26 Xt. ; �tahonco (18) S 5>�35 `33" W 95 .49 L.
'to :ra poi.ra.t that is dis'tan't; 411-1.98 f,t. eas t,(,rjr ,
4T s measure d at right;
ttngl e :C`x�0m the base; Li.t°je at 9ng3.ne,ox's Stating IID "281/-F66 a
said Survey; thonco 1'. N 1 1915 w I1 ? 2 y
iLi 051 L 3" W 13 i ['L )i.Y thence W 1 46.08 f't. thence (20) N
I,� r�{
( w S '„ 1 right
. � 1 aJ.an _ a c�,rvo to the r a�,gl�t wa, °tl't
& radius of 1 ,145 ft. , through an angle of 26 57
Of X 8.73 ft. ('the chord of which, curve bear, � � 11 � + An are length
ft. 51 thence (22) from titan tangent tkar N 0 3 9 W 5334 r'8
g at beansN370811L�11Walonga
0ur,2
ve to -tho, r:igi t with a radius of 2,945
r a I I1 ft.; through7 an angle of
0;a 11 9 , +ran are length of 16+4.04 ft. ( the chord of 'which curve
boars N 35032'30" W 164.Or ft.) thence (23) f 33 561LF511 Irl '►02.6
ft. °to a point on the N l,i.ne of said Mountgin. View Subdivision No.
1 thence (24) along 'Lasa sal. line l 89 17' Sri" W
(25) heaving said N lute: S 2r 8 1 I1 37,59 f.t. ; thon,e
55 31 B 390.62 ft. to a point that .itis
dlstirant 128.57 ft. westerly, moaourod at right angles from the base
line at T+agineor 1 s Station I'D "295•x'10.81 of said Surge thence
along a curve toll a�a Sit, wit Y; (20)
c 1 -1I g a radius Of 1,1 LI.; ft . , through an
angle of 12 2,� 4,� an arc length of 389.27 ft (t�e chord of which
b �:trs S 18 11'08" 3§7.40 ft.); thence (27) >� 08 2614611 B d ,
.f.'t. ; thence (28) S 01 OLI.15911 W 136.37 ft.thence (29) S 01 04'59"
W 2.85 ft. to a point gn 'the S .l,xxa.e of said Lot 11 'thence (30)
along said S line N 89 17'37" l; 193-12 f t . 'to -the NW cor8er of said
Lo't 3; 'thence (31) along said W line of said Loi; 31 S 00 32 "23"E
177.21 ft. ; •theme (32) leaving said W line S 73°17'1411 E 51.12 ;ft. ;.
thence (33) S 64 05143" 11 3.29 ftto a point that is distant
2r?9.15 ft. westerly, measured at right angles fromthe base line at
Eng ineer l s Station 1'D "283+20.90 of said Survey; thence 3L
along a curve 8o �thelt�i g-h�t with a radius of 1 ,145 ft. , through
an angle of 26 57 29 ) anoare length of 538.7.E 'f ft. (the chord
of which curve bears S 50 36115§" L 533.78 ft.). ); thoncW (35
from a tangent that bears S 37 08 "14" E along a curve 'to the
right with a radius of 2,945 ft.) 'through an Angle of 03 11 "2911
anoarc length of 164.04 ft. (the chord of which curve bears S
35 3212911 E 164.092 ft.); thence (36) S 34°02135', E 48 91 f't..
thence (37) S 3L1 0213511 :i' 75.02 f'�t. ; the7id (3S) S 51Ib0 13511,"E,
80-26 't . �t o a Po;in t, on the Line o f 'Tot 'I o:t:
smid lat�;�a'YLir.t"
. 4 r VA'ut",
ib . trl Y
• t.Go the point
epotnt of" bogannant. i
I t�
7E
Containing P11•39 �IcC.'u,$) more or leis, Chace.
at povtjon of thn nouthor.ly 150 ft, of aec. 3'1,r►�31'r, ��'��.�
S'lf1f�
Noted N of bho c.onto:rline+ ofSl,ntn HM,, 32.
Tho southerly 150 ft, of the WX of Sr;c�. ' �2 '.(!2 fN RIB
excOpting thoreirom the oantori 2590
, � , L , Me1)1����
Tho =Vthr;ply 491.86 fit. of the NW4 off' $00. 5) T22N, FIB,
excflptiaag thorofrom 'tbi: oastoP'ly 2590 Xt.
The northerly 491.56 fts Of Sec. 61 T22N, RIE7 MDBAMj located
E of the coaterline of State Hwy. 99.
Lots 8, 97 and 10 of "Mountain Vievt $txb .No. 'I" ���r Ma, o:i` Record
in, Map rock de on I'raf,e 12 an file: in .the officc;�of C;he :Butte
Cgt�raty �7.eco�°cl.E;r.
uE�l �r
The westerly 500 ft. of Soo.. 2, T22N N1E, MD�3&,M excepting that
Portion located within: the ATOP t;h SWy4 of said Sec, 2.
That po.r. tion of Lot 41 of "Hobart Sub" per Map Of Record in Map
Book 4 on Page 24 of the )butte: County Recorder located north of
"Eronteir Village Sub" per Map Of Record in Map Book 38 on Wages
76 and 77 of the Butta 00ia.nt7 Recorder.
All of Lot 42 of "Hobart Sub Per Map off' Re.co:rd in Map Book 4
on Page 24 of the Butte CounvGy Recorder excOpting therefrom the
:following descrtbod parcel;
Beginning at the southwesterly corner of saidoLot 42, also 'being
in the conterline Of Lassen A e . , thence N 53 14' E
to the centerline of 0 50 ft. drainage easement • �thenag X 20 471 E�
78 08 ft . ;; thene N 6 58'15" W 99 �
ft. ; thenoe N 24 21'45" W, 216.4.5 ft-; f�thenoeeX 22 -L12ce N '1 011 W, 100:5
:ft. ; 8honce along a 200 ft,. radius curve -to �the left throu'h'ian Anglo
of X34 01' aodis�tance of 293,2% f`t. • thence N -16°45'W 2 2"g
thence' S 73 16 � �0 jf W L03-59 . > 5 . � f t .
42; thence S 3 1� cif 3� 59 ft. to the we. ter y line of said Lot
>i 41 0 E, 966.2 fit. to the point of beginning.
That portion, o:f"�,Sec. 10, T22N, R1 MDD��,�M located south of S carom)
Cr�eck, Oris of �SycamQ0 Subdiavisian" per Mafia of Rerord i.n SuraBook'
32' on wages 23 and 24 of the Butte County Recordr:r north ofhiton
.Road, and went Of theChico City Limitsm '
TI),"t poPtion of the WeNe;Wy 834*06 1.t. Of thr? 14V'A Of Sec. 34
T22N, R1�',, M1�h�M :l.ocato(d. 6outh of Nud Crapk and north and ease of
the Chico City T�arr�il�ra.
C�arira� t lxtt; rtt; a 11(z.irit, oil 1."h ` W l.i.I)t-of,-wrild u�r��:. �,1�� �.� O"08'm", v
"),/4,85 ,fit;. frwr' ho A-,00'ui.oxi w,t;w(iCin &
otli.d Town,h,i:p hand 1�antt,t>; ti~'11,�'tco, fx,,om ;s a'Ld pOi.rt't� Cat' colahlorlG��aT�onL,
N 8�;�ca50 ,1361 1,; x''34.06 H. l .. to t.ht �t ruo .point; of 1�t, ;:i,t nW(; for thy:
parcel of land
bore -in desorlbod; t wnce, from ,',paid truo p oin.t or
boginning, N Oo6POP.O" W i.n.O t;. to vara i.r`on IApe ort t;k1r �r out110'vly
'taank of stud Creek; thonro, 'N 0"'0812011 W 52.0 ft. i,o tl;:ca C(,.rlbor- of,
Mud Creek; Ghonce , nlong thg c ont.or of Mud. Opoolt the following, :five,
r.our�`e and di.ctt�anoot,: N 86015' B, 106.0 sL.; i3 ca'/�'5� ' L 370.8 ft,
S 8808' E 195.0 f t. ; N 66 01, '165.8 f t . & N P8 27' d' 136.2
.ft ; thence leaving said canter of �ud Cvook, N 1/80331 E 679.20 fl;-;
Lh nce S 44 52' W 989-20 ft. ; S 89 51'50 " W 319."/5 _f t. and S
)9 30 50" W 11,81.34 ft. to 'thu true, point' of 'beei'Inxaing.
HL -Ill ,"MM1 "or, "M-211
The E Y� of the: I,' /Z of Seo. Li-, T22N, ;E2`lB, MCA excepting there-
from that portion :Located within the Chico City Limits.
That portion of the Sh of the 814 of Sec. 3, T22N, R1L7 MDB&M7
located W of the Chico City Limtts.
That portion of Tots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 of "Mountain View
Sub No. 1" per Map of Record in Book 16 on, Page 12 on ;fila i.tj
t:he office of -thn Butts County Rocordor locate d N' & E of Stat -e
11uiy- 9`) and W of tal( following dr,scr`ihod l rto I
I1P'g .bning at the SE corner of Lot 1 of stzi d sub(I °.virion; thence
S 89 01 ' 37"0W 86-10 ft. to a poit t on 't*ae S line o,': ;paid 'Lo't 1 ;
thence X 34002'35" W 80.26 ft. ; thence N ' I-�g�'35" W, 75.02 :ft. ;
thenc e N 34 02' 35" W ; 48. c)l f b. ; t t�aenc e N 35 2' Po W 164.02 ft.;
thence N 50036'58" W, 533.78 ft.; -thence N 64 05!,;3" W, 118.29 f
thence N 73"17' 141-11 W, 51,12 Tt . to a point on the W' ire of hot a
3 of said subdivision; thence alorg said W line N 00 32123" W
177.81 ft. to the Ski corner of Lot 11 of said subdivision; thenen
8 89 17' 37" W. , 193.12 ft. along the Sy line of said Lot 11 of
said subdivision` thence leaving said S line N 01 04159" E 139.22
ft. ; thence N 08 26146" �;, 337.43 ft., thencca along a curve to
the left with a radius of 1145 ft: through an arc length of 389.27
ft. ( the chard of which curve 'bears N '18 1110811 W, 387.11.4 ft-);
thence 'N 27 5531" 41 390.62 ft. -to a point on the N line of said
"mountain View Sura No. 'I" and the end of the herein &)scribed li7re
Tho above mentioned applications, pobitions, map s, draft onviron-
montal im,pac t rnporto and/or negative, reports' arc, on f';ilc' and
avail,al;lo for public viewing' Rt the: office of the B-utt'o Co Llni,,-y
i`;nvironmental. Grrtpacl; Roj-forts aro also available at- co1,Ioge 'rand
county li%'?ra:t
!
UTTE COUNTY PLANNING 00MI i111SION
BETTY a, BTI.6 TR
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
`.t'0[i1;i[t(PU1 LIS111i;j) IN M: 0,11100 :l �UfC1.`;R1"NIS a VECOM ON `a'fiLiRUAY_ �
` -9-.
t
W
i!
'Sr7 rt'
5, a;w`
Phillip B. Price
Price Burness Price & Davis
300 Salem Street
Chico, CA. 9592
C h,�Tt�aAA4TH ANN 8FAU r
PLANNING COMMISSI014
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVIL,Lej CALIFORNIA 45465
PHONEr S344401
April 28, 198o
Hear ;Mr. Price-
Subject,
rice,Subject: AP # 044--03-0-079-0
The Planning Director, Bettye Blair, has asked me to respond to your
letter of April 161 1980, wherein you inquired about the present status of
any proposed rezoning or "greenbelting" of your client's property on the
west side of the Esplanade and just north of Mud Creek. First of all, this
parcel was not included in the recent "North Esplanade" rezoning project
initiated by the Planning Commission. To my knowledge$ there has been no
recent discussion at all ,about rezoning -rhe property.
The lack of such di.scussilan could be conn dered an indication that the
Planning Commission ,is at least minimally satisfied with the present situation
north of Mud Creek and West of the Esplanade. The area has been designated
as 110rchard and; Field Crops" on the Land Ilse "Plan Map of the Butte County
General Plan_ since August, 1971,,and was shown as "Agricultural" before that.
In order to bring the actual zoning into conformity with the General Plan
designation, the County initiated and approved, a rezoning from i'A-21' (General)
to "A-20" (Agricultural.) in 19'?'`. The "A-20" zoning is still, in effect andwould limit the future use of the property to agriculture and single-family
,residences on p4zcels Of -twenty acres or more. This zoning is somewhat of a
transition betweon urban uses to the south and the "A-40" and "A-160" zoning,
to the north and west and reflect: the Commission,'s desire to prevent the.
expansion of non-agricu"!tural uses beyond substarntial physical features such
as the Esplrariade and dud Creep:
phil.lip Price
,April. 28, 10
Page
jou kahould note uha.t the commercial. rtnd :Lnduotm"! dev610pme4t (XI -Ong
the east side of the esplanade exists not juat becaU00 Of th`; Eopl,aasd,e w
but also because it blacks up to the Highway 99 freeway, forntina a long,
narrowing commercial pen nr ul,a. between two main arterio.).s• Nott-agricttl,turol
uses along the west ride of the Esplanade from, Shasta Avenue outward haVe
had far' lose than universal acceptance, with frontage development being viewod
a,s a threat to continued agricultural production on prime land to the west,.,
IlGradual transitioll" is an attractive concept, but it is a risky strategy
where there are no physical barriersor other logical limits to urban expansion.
i
if you need any further information, please feel free to contact us.
I am: not familiar with the financing arrangements of the Mud Greek draitage
facilities but 1 would encourage you to contact the Depaa'.'tmeat of Public
Works if you believe there have been any inequities.
Sincerely,
Robert Gai:ser
Planner iT
RG/at
I
4s
.r Tom" '
p,
'r •,. LAND ,0F NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAOTY
ENVIRONMENTA4 REVIEW DEPARTMENT
EARL D, NELSON, Director
May 8, 1980
Qu;fo Co. pInn,W)
R5 proposed Rezone and General
Plan Amendment of County Land I-AAY I r 1u8U
South of Chico Urcv:uax t�ulire�an►
ERD Log # 79-09-x18-01;
To Whom It May 'Concern:
The enclosed (Draft) Environmental Impact Report on the above-
named application is for your information and review.
A notice of completion of the Draft E.I.R. has been filed with
the butte County Clerk and the Resources Agency of California
Secretary
Comments toncerning the material contained in the Draft E.I.R.
are sol i ci ted: Such comments can be submitted to the Butte
County Environmental Review Department at t1he address listed
below until the close of the 45 day period of review on Monday,
June 23, 1980.
Should YOU have any questions, please contact this department_.
Sincerely,
Earl D. Nelson
Environmental Review Director
EDN I me
Enclosure(s)
16 - h C,ount,Y Center [nary Orrruille. Oxlifornia 95966 Toler hoar (916) 5344177
v'
i
Inter-DepnrWontalMemorandum
'
TO; P aiirA ntr, (io) ifl .,,S dill
PAOM, Bob Galr;liltanij jIF
SUrJJECT: Uhtco A:lIZd ort Are.=n R(,verre
Is
DlkTEi �1L1�1„�1LEi�i ..980
On July P21 '1980 the a oard of Su.pervisorS approved a General
Plan amen lm .n1, for tho C z;i.co Air,po;rt aria. The adopted version
includes :,'our changes .From thea proposinl, pres,'nted at hearings.
All four chaiiges r.eprasP.%t z,Oro zsc:�j atz tYze ,ltanh(d intensity of
use and. re ua rr c:•hange g tri tzje zoning propoa,�al originally developod
and. discussed a.-, thc. E�,1. q- The enclosed, map shows the proposed
zoning for unch,^nCdd a.,ea, Ind some or all of rho consistent zones
inn :i.s pr, ovidod
for changed a rcas. rn,r"ox�mF ,'tae'low on proposal
revisions for d' scuss4, on at your August 'I .�) mooting
Drako : Thelax ;�j (WO -a Of change, is tb� 28P rtarres owned by
'ohn Drake north D,`' 8y ;a,mor o ;rook az d Onst Of Cohasse:t Road.
Tho property h.a:z cnp,, b( --,,en d.osignatod l,ow Donn.i tl Residential but
was proposed for r7; licu� tura:,l-Re,sidonL-ial and "E H -'ick" and "A-20„
zoning because it wqs 11o,rth of, tho creek, near aircraft flight
paths and surroundeo b� gryaza.ng us()» 'rowevOa , because the property
is proposod fir a.nciz.sdc,n in a sewer assossment d.jstr^'ct annexation
to the City of Chico and r,isidential dc,velopMent; at urban densities,,
the Board voted. to 1r Ger , tl.e Low Density Resictontial in place.
Since development at; that dMnsity wouldprobably take place within
City limits, County zcning Wray have 'little significance or effect.
Nonetheless; we reeomm,,nd going t j hearings with the "R -'l” zone
which would allow minimum -size 'lots and no mobiles or livestock.
This action would serve as a general indication of uho desired
type of development if annexed to the City and would certainly be
Preferred to the existing A -2T1
if annexation dors riot; take place.
Garner: Approximately 175 acres owned by Jay. Garner southwest of
the Airport was designated lnduot.rial., a change: .from, the existing
Agri. cultural -Residential.. Although the'propertV and surrounding
Lands are undeveloped, light industrial development is planned for
the distant future.. Pursuant to the recorded request of the property
-
owner's "" , "" -that the: Commission initiate
owner' g r onrt the Ii -1 e (Limited zone for thisproperty.
hearixz s
.1221ariade industrial: Six parcels on the east side of :highway 99
Just north of the spl.anade intersection were originally proposed
for Commercial designation but, pursuant to the, property -owner's
request, were changed to Industrial. 9xisting uses include food
Processing, a former private :-chool 'building and sales of agricul�
Lural, machinery and chemicals.' pursuant to the letter submitted to
y (Tight :_Industrial be considered
g
the Commission b Thomas Moore at the General flan het we would
recommend that rrZ,�-,1 ", ) ns�dcred at the publi q
hearing.
Obloo Airl',ollt,
A aru',. f, I I OA
J)p. J'�j fill W,j, ri I
rlrrrl 0* )W d f T !A i Tj "A I d
Y p "
soUth ()F K -TO 110,Al W10
1,,jjj�j trri tilid. "A-110"
(;iwon, of' t'11 -
*).1t1; cloit.ildcrod by th(:
C, nurity lif, (-x 1 St J,74P; AlvT i ou'l, tura I i d+.,n I i a I lrrlGrLt.,art war
In rifrc(.,.t, b'v Hit, Ho"Ar'l. I r -I-, h r l aanc.o(bration 11t-1.1.1 Y10t; N'!011 "I'll' rov i �,.l
by Aliji4mint 16 UDA the' COMIA! Wj �ojjf�,-, J,t3 jjroo,,,,�<jj 1,11IC; OV.1riTUA
f I P a I I
jjI.opo,,-,�,jt c)f "A-110" -1-lifi-ould [vo forwal-d to public,
ri
oil hcull b(IOT1 flITPOw"(11 tdl,.: p""Arct-4 'Ohould
n r
jqqjj,rO'�,r.d I'or 1;hu P-1 ZOTI1 TIP' proj.,)000.�d wi .,'larl'oltlldi 9 I ) 0 -
On July 11 "1080 thc� Board Apply,oved DOTI
hoys'' prol'o-of".r�4. flor 'TI -111 zolling On 0
of, Road wry Ivad ovir"IT "AL Ily proposod
I collsi oo- w! th tho indu;-,
I 11du �,, t r, A� I.J Vv)not�� arl o -
on 1T1 Octobor I(Y/'). Th" Clomm 1 i ori should
1 -1, Or I , C, p),r) to ht�"Ari rif"",
botb ri'lid dflci,cbW
, 111,01",
wllll projro'Onl.
lon, 1 -;ho -Jon should no l; that th,
mailo hr)trv. park on liick,�-,,
Gr�tlova1 1,1an (Vt.,Lgriation. ol.1 L r 1 +- y
-1 f r K-Idillm I
-a -bow D lno R(-, . -
M
Rot,ij.dont.itil on July dor" to ',III.Ow to "I'`A -(;"
�, , oil, t1w "PA -C', P'ZoTlcan, -oori
sq mm 6
plot plart� Th,, Co 10
cviw�d 0 1' a 1
proposal f0j, roptlrty J g a .ji yj rt
zow-', which i" ap-plicid to to thr., south and whioh i.l
lql.o nonsioG-oTit with the tiew
Firiall,1,1, otaff that thea "Gh-l" zoriinf.r, proposed for much
dcrl,ns:ity which, in oOTP10
ljoco riot 'Properly rofjj-�Gt, agricultural Usv':',s,
ti7cai'
L (,.Onditjorj.,-.,, limited aocoss orifi lank tai` f ut,
and WO J)roI.10100 I Ao chang(�,s in tho propos,-.�l at this ttlfl-
1,11i, wL1 t fur
1'Or tho
Inter"Depart '!`�Aeind rand um
TO; Butte County Planning. Commis!,; -ion
PROMI Planning Staff
sunarcra c1lico Airport ltezene - Conforming pone$ in Low Density Aesidental,
uAr a September cif ID80
At their August 27 meeting the Planning Commission instructed
staff to research the Land Use PlemEnt of the General plan regarding
the possibility of adopting a "Large Ll ot" zone in an area designated
►'Low Density Residential', by the General Plan. Following .are
excerpts from. the Land Use; dement that pertain to this subject:
Pg» 27. No one policy by itself should always determine
County action; deci.siox -makers Must consider all adopter
policies which are relevant to a particular situation.
''alae continual interpretation and appl.:i cation of policy
statements to .i tdividual situations will frequently re -
milt in compromises reflecting balances and priorities
among omfliet ink policies
Pg: 29
Intergovernmental Coordination: Many County departments,
cities special districts nd State and federal_ government
ageTicies are involved in various aspects of the physical
development of t:he County. The complexity ref this system
of authority and responasibiulity makes coordination of
government plans and programs extremely difficult. At
the same time, the power of this system and the limitedscope of individual agencies means that maximum coopera-
tion is necessary to avoid haphazard and costly future
development
Policy.
a Attempt to coordinate, all government plans and pro-
grams so that they are mutually supportive 'in all
areas.
Chico Airport Rezone - Dutt_e CowityY Planning Commission
Page -2-
September i, 1980
Pg. 5
Orderly Development: Government; agencies, private companies
and the public at large have invosted substantial amounts
of money in Butte County's existing system of roads, utili-
ties and other public facilities. To maximize this invest -
meat and the level of services, ,utilization of existing
facilities is desirable, recognizing that all designated
land. for development is not immediately available foa� use.
Land ' owners have plans for -the timing of development on
their land which are to be respected..
a. .Encourage annexation to existing cities and existing
districts.
b4 Promote the full utilization of sites served by
existing public facilities.
c. Encourage development in and around existing com-
munities with public facilities.
The above sta.teme:its tend to support the Low Density Residential
designation in the area in question. Ilowevor, the followi.n
statements .from the Land Use 'Element 'tend to support an Agricultural.
esidential designation until urban services aro, available:
Pg., 34
Densities The distribution of County papulation and the
needs for public services and facilities is largely detor=
mined by the densities of residences in different areas of
the County. Density is also important in its effect on the
quietness, 'rel.bow room" and overall quality of housing situ-
ations. The intensity of residential development is related
to a number of factors, inoludii g the natural capabilities
of property, the availability of public facilities, the value
of property and proposed dwelling units,and the developing
trend and characteristics of the surrounding area.
Poli: ,
a. Correlate residne•tial densities to soil., slope and
other natural site characteristics
b. Correlate residential densities -to availability of
water and sewage disposal and ;proximity to other
public facilities. -
c. Relate residential densities to intensity and com-
patibility of adjac-ent uses.
d. ,Balance resi.dnetial densities with traffic -carrying
capfaciti.es of existing and proposed circulation plans.
s
Chico Airport Rozone - Butte Cotin.ty Planning C.ollimi,ssion
Page „3.
soptember 3, 1980
AA&ricultural Uses,* Because plant crops and -the rai !sing a
J,I vestocl; andou,i try require r�tensive ,space and can have
offensive characteristics, such uses are not always com-
patible with urban resider),tial development. At suburban
and rural residential densities, however, agricultural uses
are frequently desired and expected by residents and can
be an acceptable accessory use with controls on the intp'n-
sit„r of such use.
l'olicv:
a. Allow agricultural uses and farm animals in rlesig
dated residential areas where appropriate.
b Limit, density of farm animals in relation to; -type
of ar,.imal and parcel size.
Pg. 4 5
Site Designation Criteria, The statements present the pre-
ferred site attributes for this category. Using the criteria
to choose the appropriate categovy requires a comprehensive
evaluation of natural characteristics, public facilities,
existing development and growth trends of every site and the
surrounding area. The criteria for each category are not
intended to be conclusive and Mutually exclusive, but rather
as basic guidelines. Consequently, some sites may appear to
be suited for more than one or perhaps none or the categories.
Such areas should be assigned to the category whose uses and
standards seem most compatible to the site characteristics.
The Following statements give some freedom in assn piling different
zones to an area.-
Pg.
res.-Pg. 56
When this general plan is reviewed as to ,consistency with
any project, reliance for any finding of consistency or
iri,:onsistoiicy shall not be solely based on the land use
map:
As an example, Goverrmen.t Code 65860 defines the require
meat of cortsistency as regards rezoning as
OT.he various land uses ati authorized by the ordinance are
compatible ble with the objectives, policies, general land
uses, and programs specified in such a plan.'!
Chaco Airport Rozono - Butte County Planning: Commisslon
Page -4-
,Septombor 3, 1,980
Pg. 57
Thus it is readily apparent that the required consistency
finding for either a subdivision or zoning may, not be basea
solely on a map determination, but rather upon the objectivee,
policies, General land uses and progrpms specified in the
entire general plan.
The fc*A *(.)wtr).c, totoments define and limit the choi,cLs available:
4
The following categories and associated standards for develop-
ment, when applied to the land use plan, map, together provide
the framework for determining consistent zoning and judging
development proposals
A, complete explanation of the format and subjects used for
category description is presented hero and immediately followed
by the principles and standards for the legend: categories used
on the County's land -use plan maps.
Primary Uses: The proposed development pattern is to be:
i lustrated through the designation and arrangement of general
categories of land uses. The title of each category refers
to the predominant character r^ of an area, and the description
of primary uses defines the intended principle uses in that
area. Providing suitable locations and space for the primary
uses is tho basic purpose of each category.
Secondary Uses: This section includes other appropriate uses
which are less extensive but similar, Compatible or necessary
to the primary uses. It is assumed that the terms include
hecessery and customary subordinate uses incidental to 'the �
stated uses. i
Chico Airport ,Rezono .. Btatto County 'Planning Commission
Page -5-
September 3 ) 1.980
Pg. 4
Consistent.Zonas: „according to Government Code SectionC586q
a local zoning ordinance and adopted general plan are con-
sistent only if
"'The various land uses authorized by -the ordinance aro
compatible with the objectives, policies, general land
uses and programs specified in such a plan.'"
The prescribed zones for each category represents a collection
of all current county zoning classifications which could. be
consistent to that category. This consistency determination,
however, is insufficient as it only related zoning regulations
to category provisions and not to the application of policies
and implementation measures to specific proposals. The con-
sistent
ons stent zones listed in each category, therefore, relate -to
the intended primary and secondary uses only and not to other
policy or implementa-cion considerations.. The consistency of
zoning regulations is further considered in the "Implementa-
tion Program" section.
i
Zoning 1♦actor8: 'These are subjects which are to be considered
in the evaluation, of consistent zones and the cho ca of the
Most appropriate zoning classification. Like site designation
criteria, the use of these factors requires extensive analysis
of site characteristics and evaluation of individual situations.
These factors should guide decisions on residential densities
and intensity of use for rezonings, use permits and all devel-
opment proposals. -
Cliko ,Airport r.t,ono, �t,txe County Plarininp Commission
Pago �6
sopteml:)or 5logo
pg. 50
Primary Uses: Detached- single-family dwellings at urban den-
sities.
,Secondary Uses Agricultural uses, animal husbandry, home
occupations, outdoor recreation facilities, utilities, public
and quezi-public uses, group quarters and care houses.'
Site Designation Criteria:
1. Needed for urban residential development within 20 years.
2. Adequate water supply.
3. Sewers available or Natural conditions suitable for septic
tanks.
Lk. Adjacent or near to existing utilities, roads and single-
family residential development.
5e
Good accessibility to commercial services, schools, fire
protection and other community facilities.
Intensity of Use: Zoning allows net parcel sizes of one acre
to 6,500 square Feet. One single-family dwelling per parcel
with other residential uses limited to a maximum density of 4
dwelling units per gross acre. Home occupations, farm ,animals,
other uses and setbacks regulated to maintain single-family
residential character.
Consistent Zones: R-1, R-1 .A. C, RT -1, RT. -1A, ASR, M -R, S -R,
STZ-57 SR -1 TM -1, R --MH; FA -C.
Zoning Factors:
10. Existing parcel sizes and residential densities.
2. Avail.abili.ty of sewers or suitability for septic tanks.
3. Effects on adjacent uses, water quality, air quality, noise,
traffic flow and safety, and general environmental quality.:
4. Proximity to major streets, commercial services and all
public- facilities.
5 Distance from airports, railroads and industrial. uses.
6. Existing utilities, walkways and drainage facilities.
7 Local desires.
• a�
Chico Airport Rezono - Butte County Planninj., Commission
Patio -7-
September 5, 1980
The above Policies and statements Should bo considered in any
zoning qtiestion. The fol1owing excerpt should lie cojjsjdcre� J, -n
this case, noting the word "require" In the first sentence;
Pg. 59
It is important- to note that the urban categories (Resi-
dential, Commerv.lal and Industrial) reqiUre zoning which
alloivs tirban, u,o4es and donoities immedi.ately. The greater
V,ange of Zoning classifications allowed in
the ruin 1. ori e .1 tOrchard. arid FieLd Crops, Grazing
-
and Open Land, Timber-flount-,,Un and Itural Residential)
Places MOV0 attention and emphasis ori: zoning to determine
den6itie8.
In, summary the problem is fouv-fold, specifically:
I The policies applied to the physica,'A characteristices of this
proporty indicate that the most app.opriate General Plan
designation is Agricultural Res Uent Vtl at this time.
2, The Board of - Supervisors has adopted the Low Density Resi-
dential Jesignatimi in anticipation of availib ility of
sewev, water, and other urban services and annexation to the
City of Chico.
3. The Government Codo requires consistant zoning,
4, The (Ioneral Plan Land Use Element recillires a zone with
immediate development potential for arise s'e designations.
There appear to be tiqo possible solutionsa
1. Amend the Land Use map to -,how an Agricultural Residential
designation and zone accordingly.
2, 9ozono the property an question to ,I c6asistant zone and rely
on development standards to provide cotitrols if sewers and
other facilities do not become available,
April 17, 1980
Butte County Planning Commission
'7 County Center Drive Clay Castleberry
aroville, CA 95965 Department of Public Warks
7 County Center Drive
Orov�.11e CA 95965
Re: Airport Environs Rezone, Chico
and LrainacLe Plan
Gentlemena
Our organization is
ning for zoning and dranageeorthessreated �easteourrent plan
Highway u
north of Chico. We wish to offer a suggestion to assist you,
Property owners, and the public in dealing with both drainage
and zoning in the most ef f and duplicaticient way, without waste of to
of hearings and paperwork. ame,
Since the subjects of drainage and zoning are so closely
related and interdependent, we su
combined as much as ggest that the processes be
possible: Building in much of t
area cannot proceed, whahe rezone
tever the zoning designation, without.
adequate drainage. Drainage of some of the area would tot be
_ needed unless the zoning
makes no sense to view itherlof these ts oplanningAaspects9se ra
p separately.
We understand the environmental review
being combined. We suggest, processes are already
r
and drainage also be combined, afterimpact environmental i at heatIngs act asacing
--
r
sessments are completed on the draina e fans.
no sense in conducting the zoning hearings beforehere Would the dra" be
situation is resolved and: holding separate later public hearings
on the drainage plans alone would be unnecessary duplication,.
Furthermore, if drainage plans are changed, after rezoning,
some of the zoning may ,need to
`be ,done over again,
r_
Matte County Planning commission
Clay Castleberry pace 2
Department of Public works April lit 1980
A related concern is traffic solutions. Portions of the
zo mi.ng propose will create traffic problems which 'must be
revolved, preferably before congestion and safety hazards
become extreme. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to
develop initial road improvement pians and at least tenta-
tively determine funding sources before the rezoning. Other-
wise, the county may latex find itself in an intolerable and.
expensive situation which advance planning should prevent.
Zoning commitments to landowners should not be made if some
of the later development would be prevented by unresolvable
traffic problems.
In these uncertain economic times, we must be reasonably
certain that financing will be available, when needed, for
roads, drainage, and other public improvements. Optimism
about funding may be a mistake, unless sufficient assessments
of the details are made at an early stage6 we suggest that
now is the time tj make a realistic assessment of road and
drainage costs and funding sources, before making the "hidden"
commitment to make the improvements later.
Please note that we expect to support large portionsof
proposed zoning for the area; but our request should not be
interpreted as support or opposition for any specific porion
of either department's proposal.. These are merely procedural
suggestionz to help everyone and save money, paperaork, and
time in the long term.
Thank you.
Sincerely yo rs,
CIIC0 2 ;0
AAS, JR.
r. P es ent
ULC,: pni
John D Drake
t(�T t4rrr�iti�;e Rc�K7ct,S�iite'a(� l'C?: l�cax l�t�t�3C:l�icca C� ��� `l • . "`l'�lel>ftorte �l(� 8�ja �t��
August 26, 1950
Ms. Bet•t ye Blair
County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, Ca,, 05965
lie; Chico Airport Rezone
De%r Bettye;
As owners of Assessor's Parcel 48--02-41, we are con-
cerned with the proposed SIS -5 zoning of this parcel,
The land is located cast of Cohasset Road and north.oC
Sycamore Creek and is included in our project known as
roothill Park. Under -the present 'County Cen„,ral Plan,
this parcel is designated .as .Low Density Residential
which allows ;Cour units ]ger acre, and we request that
the actual zoning of this property coincide with the
maximum allowed in the County General. Paan.
The City of Chico is currently considering a specifir,,
plan for this parcel with 'a density of Tour units per
acre. We have also included this parcel in the North
Chico Sewer Assessment District which is presently in
the process of being formed., :, This will allow sanitary
sewer extensions to serve"this property at a future
date,
'Real Estate Development